ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Work Capability Assessment

Ian Mearns: What plans he has to improve the work capability assessment.

Michael Penning: We remain committed to reviewing continually and further improving the assessment. Dr Litchfield’s independent review was published in December, and the Government will publish their response in the first quarter of this year.

Ian Mearns: It has come to my attention through research conducted by several disability campaign groups that as many as four people a day are dying within six weeks of being declared fit for work under the Department’s work capability assessment. Will the Secretary of State reflect on those figures? When he finds them to be true, as they are based on his Department’s data, will he come back to the House and apologise to the families of the deceased, who suffered unnecessarily in their last precious days? We can recuperate benefits that are awarded incorrectly, but we cannot recuperate a person’s life.

Michael Penning: Our thoughts and prayers are with the people and families who have lost their loved ones. There is a system in place for people with life-threatening illnesses, and particularly for those who are likely to die. As I said to the Work and Pensions Committee, the Chairman of which is in the Chamber, we are trying to get the decision making down to seven days, which we would all welcome.

Tony Baldry: Am I right in thinking that we spend more than £13 billion on sickness and incapacity benefit for almost 2.5 million people of working age? Is it not right to ensure that the support goes to those who need it most?

Michael Penning: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, the scheme was brought in by the previous Administration—the Opposition have selective memory loss about that. We are determined to get the
	scheme right to help people get back into work and to help those who cannot get back into work through the benefits system.

Helen Jones: As the Court of Appeal recently threw out the Government’s appeal against the decision that the work capability assessment disadvantages those with long-term mental health problems and learning disabilities such as autism, will the Minister accept that the test is simply not designed to deal with such people? What will he do about that?

Michael Penning: The Harrington report referred to that matter specifically. Ensuring that people with hidden disabilities get all the help we can give them is something that is close to my heart, but the Harrington pilot is on hold because of the judicial review.

David Heath: In my part of the world, the work capability assessment and the personal independence payment are administered by Atos. When my constituents finally get an assessment, they find an organisation that is as insensitive as it is incompetent. Would not the best way of improving the work capability assessment be to remove the incapable Atos?

Michael Penning: We inherited the contract with Atos as the company that was running the WCA. We were not happy with the quality of its work, which is why we brought in measures. We accept that that is causing delays to the system, but it is better to have the necessary quality than to get it wrong.

Dennis Skinner: How many people have to lose their appeal after 12 months of trying to get justice done? How many more people—including the four a day referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—have to die before they get an appeal? Surely it is time for even this insensitive Government to understand that Atos is not fit for purpose and should be abandoned, and that we should start all over again.

Michael Penning: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman said that all the way through to his own Government when they brought in Atos. What the Opposition put in place when they were in government was a complete mess. We are determined to get it right. We are listening to why the tribunal judges make their decisions so that we get the decisions right earlier on.

Sarah Newton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that the Department has service level agreements with Atos and Capita that include claimant satisfaction and timeliness?

Michael Penning: Yes, we do. There is a financial penalty regime that I have every intention of implementing.

Personal Independence Payments

John Robertson: How many claimants have received the personal independence payment since April 2013.

Michael Penning: The Department intends to publish official statistics in the spring. In the meantime, we are looking to see whether we can publish interim information as soon as it becomes available.

John Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer, which is good news for a lot of people. He will appreciate that a lot of people are suffering while Capita takes so long to get that information out; they have the anxiety of not knowing whether their appeals, or even their applications for assessment, have been agreed. What kind of monitoring of Capita is he doing, and does it have enough people to do the job?

Michael Penning: We are monitoring the work of both Capita and Atos, and we will have the figures as soon as we can. Under the previous Administration’s scheme, fewer than 6% of people claiming this or a similar benefit were ever assessed. It must be right and proper that there is not self-assessment; it is done by the experts.

Anne Main: Will the Minister look into the fact that personal independence payments seem to get stuck in the system and are not passed on to the Department for Work and Pensions? My constituent waited three months for an assessment. Three more months later, it is still stuck in the system. The Department wants to sort it out. What more can he do to ensure that they liaise with each other?

Michael Penning: The Department’s officials and the contractors, Atos and Capita, are working closely every single day. We need to ensure that we get the decisions right. In such situations as the one brought to the House’s attention by my hon. Friend, we will work closely. If my hon. Friend contacts me later, we will look exactly at that point.

Anne Begg: When the Minister appeared in front of the Select Committee, he admitted that there had been very long delays in getting PIP assessment determinations. People had applied in the summer and still did not have a determination by December. We are a month further on and they still have not yet heard anything. I am now receiving e-mails from people across the whole country, as well as from my own constituents, who have been waiting for more than six months since they had their face-to-face assessment. They still have not heard whether they will get the benefit or not. What is the Minister doing to ensure that people find out whether they qualify?

Michael Penning: The evidence I gave to the Select Committee—the Committee’s questions were useful to me and I hope the evidence I gave was useful—is that the key to this is that we roll it out until we get the decisions right. The next part of the roll-out is taking place today in south Scotland. If we get it right, it will be a much better benefit for everybody. As we know, there are delays, but they are based on getting the quality and the decisions right. We are working very closely and very hard to make sure that decisions are correct when they are put out.

Greg Mulholland: I, too, have constituents who have been waiting since September.
	I have received letters in writing from the DWP saying that it cannot speed it up. What can the DWP do to speed up the process?

Michael Penning: That would depend on where the claim is within the system and whether it is with Capita, Atos or DWP. I will look into the individual complaints. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me and I will make sure we get on with it.

Discretionary Housing Payments

Bill Wiggin: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the award of discretionary housing payments.

Chris Heaton-Harris: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the award of discretionary housing payments.

Therese Coffey: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the award of discretionary housing payments.

Iain Duncan Smith: Figures published in December show that in the first half of the financial year 2013-14 the average committed spend by local authorities was 40% of their allocated budget. Against those who had said that they were overspending, in fact it turns out that the vast majority are not.

Bill Wiggin: Will the Secretary of State explain the particular circumstances for people who have been on housing benefit constantly since 1996 in relation to discretionary housing payments?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes, this is a narrow but complicated area dating back to 1996 with the introduction of local reference rent rules. They were intended to offer transitional protection at that time for existing claimants, but they were not in any way time limited. There was another opportunity, in 2008, to change the regulations when the previous Government brought in local housing allowance. They were not adjusted then. This protection had been dormant for 17 years and not used. This is a complex area that we are now resolving, but I have to say that in three different Governments it has missed the attention of Ministers.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Some would have had us believe that the discretionary housing payment would run out very quickly and that people would be forced out of London to live elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there was an underspend in discretionary housing payments of nearly £11 million, and that the claims of social cleansing from the Opposition were complete rubbish?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yes, I can. The reality, as my hon. Friend says, is that last year about £11 million in underspends was returned to the Department. It is interesting to note the claims made by some in this House. The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said that the money in her area was fast running out. It turns out that, at the six-month cut, only 28% of discretionary housing payment has actually been used.
	In Nottingham South, only 33% has been used. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said that too much had been spent in Birmingham, Erdington, but only 47% has been used. Discretionary housing payments are there to be used to help those in the most difficult circumstances. Councils should get on and use them.

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that Suffolk Coastal has used 60% of its budget after nine months and Waveney has used half its budget. Does he agree that that shows that discretionary budgets are working and that it is wrong to try to make political capital out of potentially very difficult human circumstances?

Iain Duncan Smith: It does. The reality is that about 71% have spent less than half of their discretionary budgets by the half-way cut of the year, and politicians should always be careful about using individual cases and making political capital out of what are often human tragedies.

Lucy Powell: The Secretary of State should be careful about throwing around accusations of incompetence in local authorities. I was going to ask a different question, but I want to put it on record, and reassure the Secretary of State, that Manchester city council will be spending all its discretionary housing payments and has recently applied for more. Will he accept that application for more funding?

Iain Duncan Smith: The answer I gave previously was based on what the hon. Lady actually said previously, which was:
	“The money is fast running out, if it has not already run out”.—[Official Report, 12 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 838.]
	At the six-month cut, Manchester city council had spent 28% of the discretionary payments. I suspect that, in reality, the hon. Lady was about to ask me about that, but realised that she could not because she had got it wrong.

John Healey: What a lot of waffle in response to that planted question from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). The bulletin that the Secretary of State issued last week is a clear admission that he has been hitting thousands of people illegally with the bedroom tax since April. Is he aware of the latest survey from the Northern Housing Consortium, which says that nearly half of all front-line housing workers have dealt with someone who has threatened to commit suicide, largely because of the Government’s welfare changes? Will he apologise this afternoon to those people for the concern and chaos that he is causing?

Iain Duncan Smith: I said it all right, and I say it again: the Department is, and I am, absolutely sorry that anybody may have been caught up in this who should not have been. However, what we were left by the last Government was this: 1,000 pages of complex housing benefit regulations. Under universal credit, they will be reduced to 300 pages and we will simplify them. The reality is that this is a problem of the massive complexity of housing benefit that the last Government left us,
	with a housing benefit bill that has been rising and that doubled in 10 years on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch.

Eilidh Whiteford: Discretionary housing payments simply will not plug the gap for disadvantaged tenants in Scotland. Given that last week the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities published clear evidence showing that the policy is costing more to implement than it saves, will the Secretary of State finally accept that it has been a disaster and abandon it?

Iain Duncan Smith: What I never hear about from the other side of the House, including from the hon. Lady, is what was left to us, which is 250,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation. Nobody on the Opposition Benches ever speaks for them or for the 1 million people they left on waiting lists who cannot get into homes while the taxpayer subsidises people to live in homes that they do not fully occupy. I simply put it back to the hon. Lady: I wonder when she or Opposition Front Benchers will ever speak for those they left in terrible conditions in overcrowded accommodation.

Heather Wheeler: As always when I talk about my wonderful South Derbyshire district council, I declare an interest: its leader is my husband. Does my right hon. Friend agree that good councils are spending the appropriate amount of money on this issue and that councils need to look at the systems they have to look after the most vulnerable people in our society?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is exactly the point. I am sure that the leader of South Derbyshire district council is doing almost as good a job as my hon. Friend did previously, although I leave her to sort that out with him later. The key thing is that discretionary housing payments are there to help the most vulnerable. Councils should use them. We have allocated an extra pot for those that think they might run over, so there is extra money to bid for, and we are happy to entertain those bids.

Benefit Cap

Andrew Bridgen: What recent estimate he has made of potential savings to the public purse arising from implementation of the benefit cap.

Iain Duncan Smith: Capping benefit at average earnings is forecast, by reducing the large benefit amounts previously paid to households, to save £85 million this year and around £140 million next year. What is more, some 19,000 potentially capped claimants have moved into work, where paying tax and national insurance contributions brings a further benefit to the Exchequer.

Andrew Bridgen: Residents in my North-West Leicestershire constituency are doubly astonished, first, that more than 30,000 households were claiming more than £26,000 in benefits prior to the introduction of the cap and, secondly, that the Labour party completely failed to support the introduction of a cap at all. Will
	my right hon. Friend assure us that this Government will persevere with its benefits cap policy and review the level at which the cap is set—currently at considerably more than the average post-tax income in my constituency?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is not alone, when 73% of the public support the cap as it stands, as did nine out of 10 Londoners in a recent poll. It appears that the only people who do not support the cap are Labour Members. We will keep the policy under review, but the one thing we should celebrate is that we are reforming welfare to ensure that those who need the money get it, and those who do not get back to work.

Frank Field: When previous Governments changed benefits, they commissioned research to find out about the consequences. Given that we are talking about a benefit cut, is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us who is doing the research?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not sure from that whether the right hon. Gentleman supports the change or not. [Interruption.] He supports it—yet again a lone figure on his side, on which I congratulate him. We have carried out a whole load of revisions and changes, making sure that we watch implementation carefully. We carry out research constantly when it comes to the effects of all of our benefit changes. This one is an overall positive rather than a negative.

Personal Independence Payments

Madeleine Moon: What recent assessment he has made of Capita’s timescales for processing medical assessments for personal independence payments and providing them to his Department.

Michael Penning: As I said earlier, the end to end journey time for people claiming PIP is too long—within the DWP as well as with Capita and Atos in the hon. Lady’s constituency. More than anything else, this is to do with quality issues that we want to get right. There is no point in having a very quick journey if we get the wrong decision.

Madeleine Moon: I thank the Minister for that reply. My constituent Mr Weaver applied for PIP in June, and Mrs Curran did so in July. They both had their assessments with Capita in August. The assessments have still not reached the DWP, which is totally unacceptable. Legitimate claims are being denied, which cannot be good money for the Government and cannot be a quality service. This company is inept, inefficient and not fit to carry out the work it is asked to do.

Michael Penning: I thank the hon. Lady and we will obviously look into the individual cases she mentioned. It is absolutely crucial to get it right and to get the quality right so that when benefits are claimed, those who deserve them get them and those who do not deserve them do not. Face-to-face assessment is a crucial part of this and I have said previously, fewer than 6% of those who claimed benefit were ever assessed.

Anne McIntosh: Is it not the appeals process against the initial decision that is slowing the process down? Will my hon. Friend use his good offices and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to raise this issue as a matter of urgency with the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor?

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend raises an important point. What often happens is that evidence is produced on the day of the tribunal that the Department’s officials have never seen before. In some cases, evidence has understandably come forward at that stage when we might not have known anything about it. We are looking closely at that as well as at getting more information from the judges.

Ian Lucas: Since June, I have had five cases brought to my attention at my constituency surgery where applications for PIPs have been made yet not one of them has been paid. The assessments have been carried out, yet DWP employees are telling people being treated for cancer to phone up and chase Capita. Will the Minister do something about it because this system is collapsing?

Michael Penning: People suffering from terminal illnesses are being dealt with very quickly in most cases—

Ian Lucas: They are not.

Michael Penning: Those with terminal illnesses are; cancer is not always terminal. I know this is an emotive subject, but fortunately plenty of people in this country live through their cancer. I will look carefully into what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not the case that no benefits are getting through. The vast majority are. I see cases at my surgery the same as others do, but the vast majority are getting their benefits. We will, however, work on the quality.

Tessa Munt: A GP whose patient has particularly complex medical and learning disability needs is still waiting for an assessment and a decision many months after making his application. Why are doctors’ letters not accepted?

Michael Penning: Even the last Administration had the sense to recognise that GPs were very close to their patients, and that it was therefore necessary to obtain evidence from other health experts as well, especially consultants. However, the assessment relates not to an illness or other condition, but to a person’s capacity to work. That is what is important.

OECD Disability Spend

Fiona Bruce: What recent assessment he has made of the OECD disability spend.

Michael Penning: The most recent OECD figures, from 2009, show that the United Kingdom spent 2.4% of its gross domestic product on benefits for people with disabilities. According to UK figures for 2012-13, we are spending about £50 billion a year on such benefits.

Fiona Bruce: Can the Minister explain how that money is being used to help disabled people in my constituency to lead full and independent lives?

Michael Penning: The reason we are spending so much money is that we want to ensure that people with disabilities or other long-term conditions can lead lives that are as fulfilling as possible, and, if they are able to do so, enter the workplace. Much of the money is spent on the Access to Work scheme, which has proved very successful. It is interesting that not many Opposition Members seem to approve of the £50 billion that the Government are spending.

Kate Green: Ministers have been taking a pick-and-mix approach to the OECD figures, claiming that the United Kingdom is a top spender on disability-related benefits while referring to only one indicator rather than to total incapacity-related benefit spending. Is it not time that they came clean? Will the Minister now admit that disabled people are bearing the brunt of the Government’s welfare reforms?

Michael Penning: We do not “pick and mix” at all. Those who look carefully at the figures will see that Germany spends roughly half the amount that we spend in relation to GDP. If the hon. Lady thinks that we should spend more, that will mean another spending commitment from the Opposition.

Employment Statistics

Bob Blackman: What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the most recent employment statistics.

Michael Ellis: What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the most recent employment statistics.

Esther McVey: The latest employment statistics, which show a record number of people in work and falling unemployment, demonstrate that our policies are working.

Bob Blackman: Will my hon. Friend tell the House by how much the number of claimants has fallen since the Government were elected in 2010, and what has been the consequent saving to the public purse?

Esther McVey: I know that my hon. Friend is very interested in this subject. I understand that he runs business breakfast clubs to help people to obtain work, and to secure growth in his constituency. I can tell him that 525,000 fewer people have claimed the three main out-of-work benefits since the election, that both unemployment and the claimant count are lower, and that in his constituency the claimant count has fallen by 23% in the last year, long-term unemployment has fallen by 16%, and youth unemployment has fallen by 28%. Obviously, all that is saving the Government a considerable amount of money.

Michael Ellis: Youth unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 25.6% in the last 12 months alone thanks to this Government. I organise a job fair every year, and last year more than 2,000 people came through the doors, many of them wanting to swap jobs. Thanks to the Government, things are moving very much in the right direction. Meanwhile, the Government are expanding the new enterprise allowance scheme, which is designed to improve young people’s entrepreneurial skills. What is the Minister’s assessment of how that is going?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is another Conservative Member who is doing a great deal in his area. He has got together 2,000 people from his local community—job seekers and businesses—and has found everyone work. He is right: youth unemployment has fallen by 28% over the year, and long-term youth unemployment in his area has fallen by 26%. The new enterprise allowance scheme is expanding—2,000 young people have already set up businesses in that way—and we are investing more money by extending the scheme until December 2015.

Sheila Gilmore: The December report of the Office for Budget Responsibility increased its projection for increased spend on housing benefit by £1.8 billion between March and December and attributes half of that to people in employment who will have to claim housing benefit. Is not the truth that because of low hours and wages, savings in one respect are simply popping out as increased spending in another?

Esther McVey: That is not the case. We want to look at the numbers. If we look at the spend on housing benefit, we see that it doubled under Labour from £12 billion to £24 billion. What we have got to do is look in the round at those people who are in overcrowded housing and those on waiting lists as well as those who have got houses that are bigger than they necessarily need and yet the taxpayer is funding all of it. The figures are right: the cost doubled under Labour’s watch.

Stephen Timms: What plans does the Minister have to tackle the new record level of people wanting full-time work but only able to get part-time work? That went up in the most recent statistics to 1.47 million. It is the highest level it has ever been. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Esther McVey: Actually, in the last three months the vast majority of people who got jobs were getting not only full-time jobs but also permanent full-time jobs, and three out of every four jobs have been full-time.

Andrea Leadsom: For the past three years running I have had an apprentice caseworker in my office who has been an A-level school-leaver. Does my hon. Friend agree that having apprenticeships perhaps before university is an opportunity for young people to get on to the road to work by getting some work experience and that that is an incredibly valuable experience for young people that more and more of them are taking advantage of?

Esther McVey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend who set up one of the biggest and best job clubs in her area, supporting people into work. Work experience is
	key and it does not matter whether people are on their way to university or just wanting to get into a job because this helps in understanding what jobs they want to do and what jobs they do not want to do. Around 113,000 people have gone through work experience and over 50% of them have ended up in a job. My hon. Friend is right to sing the praises of work experience.

Employment and Support Allowance

Ann McKechin: What steps he is taking to increase the ability of employment and support allowance claimants in the work-related activity group to gain paid employment.

Esther McVey: ESA claimants in the work-related activity group have access to a wide range of employment support, including the Work programme where claimants receive tailored support for two years, and a flexible menu of support through their Jobcentre Plus. Specialist support is also available through Work Choice.

Ann McKechin: The Minister will be aware that the Lichfield review analysing the system said that it was beset by delays beyond the stipulated regulatory period and that Work programme providers consistently reported that they had very little information about the people referred to the scheme. Can the Minister explain to the House what specific steps she has taken to address those concerns?

Esther McVey: First, let us talk about the Work programme, which is the first time we have ever had a coherent way to address and support these people back into work. We know through industry statistics that over 440,000 people have got a job from that programme and that over 100,000 have found a long-term job. We are supporting people as best we can—the first time we have ever done this. We are taking specific steps, too: we are analysing everything, watching what works, conducting a best-practice group and implementing the findings. So this is new, it has started and we are getting it better.

Charlie Elphicke: Can the Minister confirm that the pilot is the first time that ESA has been looked at in a co-ordinated way to try and get people to fulfil their potential? Will she also confirm that it is innovative policies like this that mean our unemployment is so much lower than that in countries like France where the Labour party’s policies are being pursued to economic catastrophe?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is right. Most of Europe is looking to us to see how we get people into work, whereas the Opposition are looking to France where the exact opposite is happening. This is a very complicated journey for people who are in the ESA group and for most of them it is about understanding their lifestyles and getting them closer to the workplace and then into a job.

Auto-enrolment

Andrew Jones: What recent assessment he has made of trends in auto-enrolment.

Steve Webb: I am pleased to update the House and say that more than 2.5 million workers have now been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. That puts us roughly a quarter of the way through the entire programme of automatic enrolment.

Andrew Jones: What have the Government done to ease the burdens on employers, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises that play such a dominant role in the business mix in my constituency?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right. Every change that we have made to the administration of automatic enrolment has been designed to reduce the burden on firms. For example, we have raised the wage threshold at which people are automatically enrolled, and we have delayed the staging for the smallest firms so that no one who employs fewer than 50 people will have to stage before April 2015.

Basic State Pension Inheritance

Matthew Offord: What transitional arrangements his Department will make in respect of the ending of basic state pension inheritance.

Steve Webb: The ability to access or increase a state pension based on the national insurance record of a partner or former partner was introduced in the 1940s, but less than 5% of people reaching pension age after the single tier is introduced will be affected by the removal of this facility. We are putting in place transitional arrangements for certain women who paid the married woman’s stamp, but to go beyond that and make transitional arrangements for a broader group would severely damage the simplicity of the scheme.

Matthew Offord: Can my hon. Friend confirm that protection will be put in place for those women who have paid the married woman’s stamp, to ensure that they receive a decent state pension?

Steve Webb: Yes, I can. Women who paid the married woman’s stamp at any point in the 35 years before the scheme comes in will get the pension that they expected—namely, the 60% for married women and the 100% widow’s pension.

Gregg McClymont: When the Minister announced his flat-rate state pension reform, the key argument was that the public would henceforth have clarity about what they could expect from the state in retirement. Now we find, via a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), that the Government have no intention of writing to individuals to communicate what the state pension changes will mean for them and their families. Why did the Minister give the impression that the Government would write to people about their state pension entitlement if he has no intention of doing so?

Steve Webb: I am slightly baffled by that question, because our reforms to the state pension will affect everyone who reaches state pension age after 2016. That
	is almost the entire working age population. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we should write 40 million letters?

Funeral Payments

Emma Lewell-Buck: What assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the eligibility criteria for funeral payments allocated from the social fund.

Steve Webb: It is important that help is targeted at those who are least well off at the time the need arises. The Government therefore firmly believe that the qualifying criteria for the funeral payments should be linked to the receipt of one of a number of income-related benefits.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Minister for his response, but the reality is that almost one in five people struggles to pay the cost of a funeral service for a member of their family, and more and more are taking on debts so that they can afford to pay for a service for their loved one. Will the Minister therefore consider adjusting the criteria so that families suffering emotional hardship need not experience financial hardship as well?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We have expanded the scope of the budgeting loans scheme to include funeral costs, which were not previously eligible. If someone is short of cash to meet funeral costs, they can borrow money through the social fund if they are eligible for a budgeting loan, as well as applying for the grant that we pay, which averages £1,200.

Under-occupancy Penalty

Nicholas Dakin: What assessment he has made of the effect of the under-occupancy penalty on household incomes.

Esther McVey: The average weekly reduction in housing benefit resulting from this measure is £14.50. However, two thirds of those affected experience weekly reductions of less than that, and the average weekly loss for those who have moved off benefit as a result of this policy is £8.

Nicholas Dakin: When I visited the Scunthorpe food bank recently, the excellent volunteers there reported a significant increase in the numbers of people using the food bank. When I asked them why that was, they chorused in unison: “The bedroom tax.” When are this Government going to do a proper evaluation of the damage the bedroom tax is doing to hard-working families?

Esther McVey: I, too, praise the local community, the voluntary groups, the Trussell Trust and the Churches that are helping people through the food banks, but I do not agree that we can draw an analogy between what is happening there and our attempt to get fairness through changes to the spare room subsidy. What about those people who are in overcrowded homes? What about those people who are on a waiting list? How do we support everybody in this way? Labour shirked dealing with this problem, and it is a very difficult issue to get right. Labour shirked it but we are dealing with it.

James Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is financially unsustainable for the housing benefit bill to continue rising at the level that it has historically without the type of fundamental reform to housing benefit that this Government are introducing?

Esther McVey: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are many dimensions to this, because it is not just about a housing benefit bill that doubled under Labour’s watch; it is also about the lack of houses that were built, fairness in the system, getting housing right and building right for the future.

Chris Bryant: This might be all right if there were smaller properties for people to go to, but there are not. It might be all right if £14.50 was a tiny sum, which it may be to the hon. Lady or to any of us in the Chamber, but it is not to the carers who do an invaluable job, not only on behalf of the person they care for, but for the whole of society. So how can it possibly be right that 60,000 carers are paying, on average, as the Minister has just admitted, an extra £14.50 a week? Are this Government dim-witted, short-sighted or just plain cruel?

Esther McVey: I am afraid none of those are true. I see that the hon. Gentleman gathered much information together, but let us see what happens; as I said, we have got to get this right. We have to get the housing right. We have got to have more smaller buildings. He wrote to me as he did not understand about conversions and I had to lay it out clearly in the letter; the National Housing Federation agreed with me. Despite not knowing the facts, he did produce a press release for the papers. We are getting conversions right, sorting out the problem and helping as many people as possible.

Teresa Pearce: What assessment he has made of the effect of the under-occupancy penalty on carers.

Esther McVey: Live-in carers are provided for as part of the assessment of household need. An additional room for non-resident overnight carers is allowed in certain circumstances. Discretionary housing payment funding has been increased to £180 million for 2013-14 to help support vulnerable claimants to adjust to the reforms.

Teresa Pearce: Many children grow up with separated parents, but I think we would all agree that joint parenting is in the best interests of the child. One of my constituents is a devoted father whose small son lives with him 50% of the time, but he now has to lose his son’s bedroom because the benefits system will accept only one parent as the “main carer”. Will the Minister re-examine that rule and consider an exemption?

Esther McVey: The hon. Lady is right to bring this matter to the House, and such situations are always difficult, but the room would be allocated to whoever was the main carer of the child. In this instance, that is the mother and that is who we would be looking to. We
	would not be supporting two sets of rooms in two separate houses, as we are trying to get this housing policy right.

Barbara Keeley: May I bring the Minister back to the issue of unpaid family carers of sick and disabled people? She recently admitted in a response to my question that 50,000 or 60,000 of those carers were affected by the bedroom tax. More than 1 million of those carers have given up work to care, and they have nowhere to go to find the money. She has talked about live-in carers, but it is not about that. Will she answer about the 50,000 or 60,000 carers? Will she admit that it was a mistake not to exempt them from the bedroom tax?

Esther McVey: What we did is not name absolutely everybody who could have part of the discretionary housing payment. We have allowed discretion for those people who might need it the most, hence it is called “discretionary”, hence it has been trebled and hence we are supporting these people. Obviously, if somebody on housing benefit, or their partner, needs an overnight carer on a regular basis, they would have their spare room subsidy; they would be exempt from this.

Habitual Residence Test

Nigel Mills: What plans he has for the habitual residence test.

Iain Duncan Smith: Migrants must now meet a much tougher habitual residence test than before, showing the efforts they have made to find work before coming to the UK and that their English language skills are not a barrier to getting a job. They must also have been resident in the UK for three months before being able to access out-of-work benefits. We have plans to make it even stronger, by introducing a minimum earnings threshold, with tougher questions on whether work is genuine, and job seekers from the European economic area will not receive housing benefit.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that detailed answer. I urge him to go a bit further and listen to the representations he has received to extend the qualifying period for the habitual residence test, and make people have to be here for a year before they can get those benefits.

Iain Duncan Smith: As has been made clear beyond this Chamber, we are looking at that matter at the moment, and we have been discussing it with a number of other European nations, the vast majority of which are clear and with us on the idea that freedom of movement should not result in an opportunity for people to take benefits from wherever they want and to pick and choose their benefit areas. We are looking at how we can come to an agreement on those time scales and limits.

Universal Credit

Steve Rotheram: What his most recent estimate is of the number of people who will be claiming universal credit by April 2014.

Iain Duncan Smith: Based on caseload projections, we expect more than 6,000 claimants from the pathfinders to be on universal credit in January.
	Beyond the pathfinder scheme and in the live running of universal credit, we are also rolling out other components, such as the claimant commitment. Jobcentre Plus advisers have agreed around 120,000 JSA claimant commitments, rising by some 30,000 each week. That continues our progressive approach to date, enabling a safe and successful delivery.

Steve Rotheram: The Secretary of State has made a pig’s ear of the roll-out of universal credit. Does he agree with his colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who claimed that the mess was all his fault?

Iain Duncan Smith: Actually my right hon. Friend did not make that claim. If the hon. Gentleman had gone on with the quote, we would hear that he said:
	“I’m a very strong supporter of what he is doing…and I’m absolutely confident that”
	he is capable of implementing it.

Kettering Jobcentre Plus

Philip Hollobone: How many adults and young people have been helped to find employment by Kettering Jobcentre Plus in each of the last three years.

Esther McVey: In the last three years, the number of young people and adults claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Kettering has fallen by 26%, long-term unemployment is down 8%, youth employment is down 35% and long-term youth unemployment is down 31%. Claimants are not required to tell us their reason for leaving JSA, but surveys suggest that it is that 77% of people move into work.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Minister for that extremely good news for Kettering. Will she say what assistance is being provided to help young people find employment?

Esther McVey: I will indeed. I was planning to give my hon. Friend some information for those young people in Kettering. There is a growth hub, Brackley job club, Christ Church work club, the graduate boost work club, Kettering library work club and a whole host of extra support. Across the country, we have put £1 billion in the Youth Contract to help young people get into work.

Topical Questions

Neil Carmichael: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome industry figures that suggest that business hiring intentions are at their highest for two and a half years and that even more UK businesses are reporting that they intend to recruit in 2014. Those positive signs are backed up by the latest labour market
	statistics that show that more people are in private sector employment than ever before—up by more than 1.6 million since the general election.

Neil Carmichael: With the popularity of the post office in mind, does the Minister agree that the value of the post office card account is immense, benefiting some 2.9 million people? Will he think about extending it?

Steve Webb: I indeed agree with my hon. Friend that the post office card account has played an important part in supporting the post office network and enabling pensioners and benefit recipients to receive their money at a local post office. All of the options under consideration conclude that access to pensions and benefits via the post office will continue beyond March 2015.

Rachel Reeves: We already know that 600,000 people are affected by the bedroom tax, two thirds of them are disabled and 60,000 are carers. Will the Secretary of State now tell the House exactly how many long-term residents have been wrongly paying the bedroom tax since April because the Government failed to spot a loophole in the legislation?

Iain Duncan Smith: We have already made it clear that the number is likely to be between 3,000 and 5,000, but we will be clearer about that when the local authorities, which are responsible for collecting the data, come forward with the final facts.

Rachel Reeves: The fact is that the Secretary of State has not got a clue. It could be 5,000 or it could be as many as 40,000 people, as reported by the experts. What a total shambles! Will the Secretary of State now guarantee that everybody who has been wrongly paying the bedroom tax will be reimbursed, and instead of closing the loophole, will the Government now do the right thing and scrap the bedroom tax?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yet again, what we have from the hon. Lady is a moan about a policy that helps people in difficult circumstances. I said earlier that not once has she come to the Dispatch Box and said that she was concerned about those her party left behind living in overcrowded accommodation. Not once has she mentioned the 1 million on the waiting list or apologised for the fact that building levels for social housing fell to their lowest point since the ’20s. Of course we will look after those affected by the policy, but she must make it clear that she supports one of these policies; otherwise, there will be a total cost to the Exchequer. The shambles is on the Opposition’s part.

Matthew Offord: Will the Minister confirm that under the new system, 80% of individuals will be entitled to a full single-tier pension in their own right by 2030?

Steve Webb: I am encouraged by the close interest my hon. Friend is taking in the single-tier pension, and I feel he is a kindred spirit. He is right that, as the 35-year qualifying rule includes not just earned contributions but credits for caring and so on, the vast majority of people will qualify for the full single-tier pension.

David Crausby: In response to an inquiry, the Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed to me that employers advertising vacancies on the Government’s jobmatch service must provide a full, clear and accurate job description. Does the Secretary of State agree that they should also make it clear when they are offering zero-hours contracts, rather than simply listing them as part time?

Iain Duncan Smith: Of course, the key point is that all contracts must be clear from the beginning and every employee must know what contract they are on. A very small percentage of the population are on zero hours and great care is needed, as some jobs and some individuals prefer such contracts—as the hon. Gentleman’s Government found out when they were in power.

Marcus Jones: Will the Minister update the House on the progress in providing support for mesothelioma sufferers?

Michael Penning: Legislation on compensation for mesothelioma sufferers went through the House last week, and I was pleased to see the Bill receive its Third Reading. As I said at the time, it is not perfect but it will help as a fund of last resort for those who have had nothing from the system because they could not trace their employers or insurers. I hope that Her Majesty will grant it Royal Assent at the earliest opportunity.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Government’s auto-enrolment pension scheme will provide relatively poor and insecure returns, based as it is on the private pensions industry and subject to stock market vagaries. Is not the only long-term solution a comprehensive and compulsory state scheme for all, with defined and guaranteed returns, in line with schemes overseas?

Steve Webb: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistency on the issue. His view is that he wants his income in retirement to be wholly dependent on a promise that future taxpayers would fund it. I must say that I would prefer to spread my risks by having a decent, simple state pension, such as the single-tier pension that we are introducing, and a stock market-linked investment that will benefit in the long run as the economy grows and, crucially, will benefit from a contribution from the employer, too, which is not the case in the state scheme.

Bill Wiggin: Will the Secretary of State say how many fewer children there are in workless families since 2010?

Iain Duncan Smith: The total figure for the fall in the number of workless households has been in the order of 17%. The position we inherited was that it had not fallen for 30 years and approximately 2.5 million children were living in such households. That number has fallen by several hundred thousand—a clear change and a clear improvement for the public and those going back to work.

Nick Smith: Can the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no further delays to his roll-out of universal credit?

Iain Duncan Smith: Universal credit is set to roll out according to the timetable I laid out the other day. We have been round this—[Interruption.] With respect, Mr Speaker, I know that Christmas is over but I think one of the pantomimes left its dame behind on the Opposition Front Bench. Universal credit will roll out in the time scales available and will be a major benefit to all those who come under it, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith).

Andrew Stunell: Constituents of mine who face mandatory reconsideration are stuck with the possibility of a gap in their benefits until their tribunal hearing. I know that the Secretary of State is very keen to deal with that problem. Will he tell the House what further steps can be taken to protect my constituents?

Michael Penning: One of the things we have done in the past couple of weeks, since I came to this post, is get information back from tribunal judges. Previously, we did not have that information. We are studying why judges are making those decisions, so we can make sure that we get decisions right before they go to tribunal.

Steve Rotheram: Given the praise for the Health and Safety Executive from respondents to the recent triennial review, including positive feedback from the business sector, will the Minister support its regulatory function of saving British workers’ lives, instead of repeating the tired old Tory mantra about work-based dangers: “It’s health and safety gone mad”?

Michael Penning: I am slightly disappointed in my hon. Friend for asking that sort of question, because it is very important that health and safety is taken seriously in the workplace and in public areas. Right across the Christmas period, I went public about the need to ensure that Christmas was not spoiled by stupid comments, and stupid local authorities saying, “We shouldn’t do this or that”—throw snowballs, or have Christmas trees in certain areas—“because of health and safety.” That is wrong, and it has nothing to do with health and safety; it is an insurance risk.

Philip Davies: Has the Secretary of State managed to watch programmes such as “Benefits Street” and “On Benefits & Proud”? If so, has he, like me, been struck by the number of people on them who manage to combine complaining about welfare reform with being able to afford to buy copious amounts of cigarettes, have lots of tattoos, and watch Sky TV on the obligatory widescreen television? Does he understand the concerns and irritation of many people who go to work every day and pay their taxes but cannot afford those kinds of luxuries?

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right: many people are shocked by what they see. That is why the public back our welfare reform package, which will get more people back to work and end these abuses. All these abuses date back to the last Government, who had massive spending and trapped people in benefit dependency.

Barry Sheerman: May I ask the Secretary of State to look carefully at his many policies that are delivered through intermediaries such
	as G4S, Capita and Atos? Are not many of those private sector providers deeply ineffective and inefficient? They cause many of my constituents great grief.

Michael Penning: While I accept some of the things that the hon. Gentleman says—in particular, I accept that Atos’ contract for the work capability assessment was brought in by the previous Administration—there can be benefits, and savings can be made, if assessments are done correctly. To look after our constituents, we have to make sure that companies do them properly.

Richard Fuller: In the Minister’s reply to my written question of 5 December, we learned that there was a prosecution in fewer than one in four of 45,000 cases of benefit fraud. Only 400 cases resulted in a prison sentence; the vast majority were handled through informal recovery processes. What proportion of the informal repayment arrangements are up to date, and does the Minister believe that increasing the incidence of prosecution would be helpful in reducing the incidence of benefit fraud?

Iain Duncan Smith: We have made great progress in pursuing more people than have ever been pursued before. The reality is that the amount got back from those who have been defrauding the state is better than it has been, but in the answer to which my hon. Friend refers, we made it clear that we have much more to do. It is the nature of many benefits that they are open to abuse; changes such as universal credit will simplify the process and give far less opportunity to those who would defraud the system. That is the right way to deal with the issue.

Ian Paisley Jnr: In Northern Ireland, 300,000 pensioners enjoy the winter fuel allowance. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether, if he is returned to office after the next election, that benefit will remain in place?

Iain Duncan Smith: It is this Government who have stood by that. The Prime Minister gave a pledge before the last election, and we intended to, and will, see that all the way to the election. As always, all further commitments will be made and published in the manifesto.

Simon Kirby: Can the Secretary of State confirm that universal credit will improve the lives of those in our poorest communities, including those of many people in Brighton, Kemptown?

Iain Duncan Smith: I can indeed. Universal credit replaces the benefits that are most open to fraud, in many cases. Also, housing benefit doubled in value under the last Government; universal credit will deal with those problems, get things back into order, and provide an incentive to go back to work; that is the key thing. Getting people back to work, which the Opposition are not interested in, is the key element of welfare reform.

Andrew Gwynne: Given this latest bedroom tax shambles, can the Secretary of State clarify whether he will write off, or seek repayment
	for, discretionary housing payments that have been made to those people who will now receive back payment of housing benefit?

Iain Duncan Smith: I made it clear in my previous answer that I will be coming forward with full details about that, including the number of people affected.

Charlie Elphicke: I urge the Secretary of State to promote fairness for people on housing waiting lists, fairness for people in overcrowded accommodation, where children have to do their homework in the hallways, and fairness for hard-working people and their families when it comes to welfare tourism.

Iain Duncan Smith: That is exactly right. The reality that my hon. Friend has spotted is that the Opposition have voted against every single one of our welfare reforms. Not only would the welfare bill have been £45 billion higher under them, but more people would be out of work and they would have failed the British people.

Jim McGovern: On the Work programme, can the Minister explain why Dundee is once again the least supported city in Scotland, with only 9.79% of people being helped back into work by the programme? Will she apologise to the people of Dundee and explain why 90% are still not being helped?

Esther McVey: The majority of people are being helped by the Work programme. As I said earlier, this is the first time we have had a co-ordinated approach to support, and it has supported 2.5 million people so far. Of course we have to make it better and support more people, but 444,000—that figure is from industry statistics—have actually got a job.

Greg Mulholland: Tragically, nearly 10,000 families suffer the death of a child each year, including 7,800 babies under the age of one. Is it
	not time that the Government did the right and compassionate thing in the remainder of this Parliament by backing the Change Bereavement Leave campaign and introducing a statutory right to bereavement leave for all parents who lose a child?

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are reforming bereavement benefits. The intention, having talked with bereaved families, is to focus the funding on the point of bereavement and the immediate year thereafter, but obviously ongoing support for bereaved families will be available through universal credit. I will be happy to discuss the matter with him further.

Jonathan Ashworth: A few moments ago the Secretary of State quoted the Minister for the Cabinet Office on universal credit, but he forgot to mention the part where the Minister called its implementation “lamentable” and said that a lot of money has been wasted. We also learnt last week that the Cabinet Office withdrew the Government Digital Service from universal credit, a decision described as “disappointing” by the lead official. Why did the official describe it in such terms?

Iain Duncan Smith: Yet again the Opposition are farming in and around old e-mails. The truth is that universal credit and the Cabinet Office are working together, with the Cabinet Office supporting us on the digital ask. The Minister for the Cabinet Office made it absolutely clear that that is where we are going. I know that in reality the Opposition do not support universal credit, but it would be better if they came clean: it will be delivered and they will be thankful in the end.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.

Syria

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on Syria. I would first like to inform the House that we have reached E3 plus 3 agreement with Iran on implementing, from 20 January, the first stage nuclear agreement reached in Geneva, as set out in my statement on 25 November. We will now move to seek a comprehensive settlement on the nuclear issue with Iran.
	Yesterday I attended the meeting of the core group of the Friends of Syria in Paris to prepare the ground for the Geneva II peace negotiations beginning in Montreux on 22 January. In his letter of invitation, the UN Secretary-General makes it clear that the aim is to
	“assist the Syrian parties in ending the violence and achieving a comprehensive agreement for a political settlement, implementing fully the Geneva Communiqué, while preserving the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria.”
	That means agreeing a transitional governing body in Syria with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent, to meet the aspirations of the Syrian people.
	Our united message in Paris yesterday, from all 11 countries represented, was the vital necessity of this process, the great importance of both the regime and the opposition being prepared to attend, and our determination to support a political settlement and end the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people. No one should underestimate the difficulty of the negotiations ahead, but we will not give up on diplomacy as the route to stopping the appalling bloodshed, nor will we waver in supporting the moderate Syrian opposition, for if there is only a murderous regime on the one side and extremists on the other, there can be no peaceful settlement in Syria.
	President Jarba of the Syrian National Coalition has always said that he is ready to attend the Geneva negotiations. His task is to persuade the rest of the moderate opposition to agree to that at a time when their towns, villages and homes are under relentless attack. The National Coalition is expected to make a final decision at its general assembly this Friday. We urge it to attend and to put the spotlight on the Assad regime’s responsibility to end this terrible conflict. Today Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov met UN and Arab League envoy Brahimi for further discussions ahead of the talks. There is a pressing need for measures that can build confidence ahead of the negotiations such as prisoner releases and progress on humanitarian access, including through local ceasefires. We call on all parties in Syria to work towards such actions.
	Since my last statement to the House, the violence has remained intense. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights now puts the death toll at over 125,000 people. The regime continues to bombard Aleppo and other towns and cities, including through the repeated use of barrel bombs. These huge canisters, filled with explosives and shards of metal and dropped from helicopters on to civilian areas, have killed 600 people in Aleppo alone since mid-December, including 172 children, and injured 3,000 people. The use of this deliberately indiscriminate weapon is yet another war crime and is clearly designed to sow terror and weaken the will of the civilian population. Assad and those around him should be in no doubt that the world will hold them to account.
	The deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people is also utterly unacceptable. The UN Security Council presidential statement in October last year demanded that aid must be able to reach all Syrians. However, the UN estimates that 2.5 million people inside Syria are currently not receiving assistance, including 250,000 people trapped in besieged or hard-to-access areas. Countless numbers of people are being denied access to food and medicines, and there are now sickening reports of innocent people dying from malnutrition. Last week at the Security Council we proposed a new statement calling for immediate and unfettered access for aid. This was blocked by Russia, but we will continue to seek action at the UN Security Council and to work with Russia to try to bring about progress at Geneva and in the humanitarian situation. More than half the Syrian population is now in need of humanitarian assistance: 9.3 million people within Syria, and 2.3 million refugees in the region, who are facing bitter winter conditions.
	The UK has now provided half a billion pounds in aid—the largest sum our country has ever committed to a single crisis. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced that we have now allocated or delivered on all our funding promises. On Wednesday she will attend a pledging conference in Kuwait where the UK will make a major further donation, in response to the new UN appeal, of $6.5 billion for Syria in 2014, and we will urge other countries to be equally generous. We will also press for the lifting of sieges and access for humanitarian organisations, the immediate end to attacks on civilian areas and medical facilities, and respect for international humanitarian law.
	In this House and this country we are very conscious of the importance of a greater role for women in ending conflicts and building peace. The UK has led the way in advocating a direct role for women in the Geneva negotiations. We have put forward proposals to ensure that both sides include women in their delegations, we have urged the UN to facilitate a clear role for women’s groups and civil society in the form of a consultative body present at the negotiations, and we are providing £200,000 in funding to enable Syrian women’s groups to take part.
	On top of our humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, we have given more than £20 million in support for opposition groups, civil society, human rights defenders and media activists. This includes training and equipping search and rescue teams, providing power generators and communications equipment, supporting and training civil administrations, and helping survivors of sexual violence.
	In November last year, we announced an increase in non-lethal support to the supreme military council of General Idris, including communications assistance and medical and logistics equipment. In December, we took the decision to impose a temporary halt to deliveries of those supplies, following fighting over control of the border crossing at Bab al-Hawa. We are ready to resume—and to consider increasing—this assistance as soon as we are satisfied that conditions on the ground allow the military council to take safe delivery of our equipment.
	Since 3 January, Syrian opposition groups have been battling an al-Qaeda-affiliated extremist group—the so-called “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”—in
	dozens of locations across northern Syria. Opposition groups are reported to have driven the al-Qaeda-affiliated group back in Aleppo, Idlib, Hama and al-Raqqah governorates. The fighting has been accompanied by widespread public demonstrations against the torture and summary executions carried out by the extremists.
	That the moderate opposition is prepared to fight against these groups is a demonstration to the world that they reject extremism, just as they reject the Assad regime. It gives the lie to Assad’s claim that that there is no choice other than his regime or extremist terrorists. And it underlines the importance of supporting the moderate opposition forces to help them counter the extremists—which is vital for security in the region and in the UK. Assad’s brutality is the best recruiting tool the extremists have. Ultimately, the only long-term way to deal with the extremist threat is to reach an inclusive political settlement.
	We have always warned that the longer the conflict continues, the greater the consequences will be for regional peace and security. There have been further car bombings in Lebanon, as well as clashes on the Lebanese border. There has also been fierce fighting in western Iraq involving al-Qaeda extremists—at least in part the result of the conflict in Syria. And both Jordan and Lebanon, as well as Turkey, are generously coping with the strain of the ever-increasing burden of Syrian refugees, hosting more than 575,000 and more than 860,000 refugees respectively. We have given more than £111 million in humanitarian support to Jordan, more than £109 million to Lebanon, and more than £15 million to the Lebanese and Jordanian armed forces to help protect their borders.
	One area in which progress is being made is the destruction of Syria’s chemical stocks. The first consignment of the most dangerous chemicals has now left Syria, after a short delay caused by intense fighting and poor weather. The Syrian regime must ensure that the remaining material is transported to the port as quickly as possible, to ensure that all chemicals can be eliminated by the end of June. The disposal of Syria's chemical stockpile is a strong example of international co-operation. Italy, the United States, Russia, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland and China are all making important contributions.
	In addition to the support worth £2.4 million that the UK has provided to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons destruction effort, we announced on 19 December that we would accept some of the chemicals for destruction in commercial facilities here. These chemicals are similar to many other industrial chemicals routinely handled in the UK and we are working to ensure the safe management of this operation.
	A Royal Navy ship, HMS Montrose, is about to join the escort of the Danish and Norwegian vessels transporting the chemical stocks from Syria. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has also informed the House today that we will provide specialist equipment for use on board the US vessel where material of greatest proliferation concern will be neutralised.
	The situation on the ground in Syria is appalling and getting worse, as I have described. The threat to regional and international security continues to grow, as the conflict increasingly cannot be contained within Syrian borders. We will continue to intensify our efforts to reach a political settlement, to save lives and to protect our own security.
	It is only through a political resolution that the conflict can be brought to an end. The start of the Geneva II peace conference on 22 January is an important step, and, while we have no illusions about how difficult and challenging a process this is likely to be, we will do everything possible, with other nations, to help it succeed.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for giving me advance sight of it.
	On Iran, agreeing the terms of the deal in Geneva back in November was indeed an important first step, but the real test remains how it is implemented on the ground. Given the past conduct of the Iranian regime, it is now vital that the international community remains vigilant and stringently monitors the implementation of the first stage nuclear agreement in the months ahead.
	Turning to Syria, a conflict that began nearly three years ago as an uprising against the Assad regime has since inflamed sectarian fault lines within the country and mutated into a proxy regional conflict, so delivering support to those most affected by the ongoing violence remains urgent and vital. Ahead of this week’s long-awaited second pledging conference in Kuwait, Baroness Amos has already stressed that the conference will need to raise much more than the $1.5 billion raised last year if it is to meet the scale of the humanitarian need.
	The Opposition of course welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the UK Government have now allocated or delivered all our funding promises, but earlier today the Secretary of State for International Development confirmed that contributions from others have so far fallen well short. Will he therefore tell the House what action the Government are taking to encourage other nations to meet their obligations on past pledges, before further pledges are made in the coming days? We also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts, along with the Friends of Syria group, to encourage the Syrian National Coalition to commit to attending the Geneva talks.
	In the light of previous experience of such conflicts, such as the 15-year Lebanese civil war, and the apparent intractability of the factions fighting within Syria today, we all recognise the scale of the challenge, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, involved in securing a full transitional deal in Geneva in the coming days. Yet surely the first goal at Geneva II, between the main international and regional players, could and should be to aim to secure a stop to the escalation and fuelling of the conflict.
	That is why the role of Iran in particular may yet be crucial. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said that Iran would take part in the Geneva II peace conference if invited without preconditions. He added:
	“We support any initiative aimed at finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis.”
	It is of course right to acknowledge the role that Iran has so far played in deepening and inflaming this conflict. Yet with the need for resolution now so urgent, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran’s claimed resolve to be part of the solution should now be tested, and if so, does he agree that one way of doing so is to bring Iran to the table at Geneva to participate in the conference?
	A key priority for the international community at that conference must surely be to minimise the problems of overspill across the region by working with allies in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what other steps, beyond humanitarian support, the UK Government are taking to help the Governments of Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon to respond to the growing internal political and economic pressure that the Syrian conflict is placing on them?
	The rise of al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria, such as those the Foreign Secretary mentioned, is not of course simply a concern for Syria; they form but part of a crescent of crisis that stretches from Iraq to Lebanon. Will the Foreign Secretary set out his assessment of the extent to which British citizens are playing a role in these conflicts, and will he assure the House today that our agencies are sufficiently focused on these deeply troubling developments?
	The challenges to be addressed by the Geneva II conference are of course considerable, but the process under way to secure the peaceful destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile offers us a point of hope amid the death and destruction still being witnessed in the country. The Government will therefore have our support in the coming days in their effort to secure real and substantial progress in Geneva next week towards a political settlement that ends the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, including for the strong support across the House for our trying to do everything we can to make a success of the start of the Geneva II process. He is of course absolutely right to say that a beneficial early product of that could be measures that stop the fuelling and escalation of the conflict. That is why I have talked, as have Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov at their press conference today, about the great desirability of local ceasefires and improved access for humanitarian aid even before we all get to Geneva next week. These are of course things that could also be beneficial products of the process.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the role of Iran. He said correctly that Iran has done quite a bit to deepen and inflame the crisis, including through much direct support for the Assad regime and its brutal treatment of its people. Our position on Iran depends very much on its readiness to work with the outcome of Geneva I. The invitation letter of the UN Secretary-General is clear about the purpose of our invitation to Montreux and then to Geneva, where we will carry on next week, which is to implement the original Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012. Iran was not present at that conference, but all the other nations are united behind that communiqué. That includes Russia, which was represented there.
	That is the basis of Geneva II. It is about bringing about a transitional governing body with full executive authority that is formed by mutual consent. A signal of support for that being our united purpose would be very helpful in getting Iran to Geneva II. There is no problem in principle in any quarter, and certainly not among western nations, with Iran coming, but there is the practical problem of whether it is prepared to play a constructive role if it gets there. We would welcome stronger signals of that from the Iranians.
	On the questions about Jordan and Lebanon, a great deal of the help that I have described is humanitarian assistance. In the case of Lebanon, where there has been violence, we use our diplomatic presence in every possible way to help the authorities to calm the situation. We also give direct support to the Lebanese armed forces. We help to finance some of their border posts. I welcome the recently announced support from Saudi Arabia for the Lebanese armed forces. It is providing $3 billion of assistance to build up the Lebanese armed forces. We have assisted Jordan with a good deal of equipment, as well as with the support that I have mentioned.
	It is clear that the number of British nationals who have travelled to the region to fight is into the hundreds. We are vigilant about that and all our security agencies are focused on it. It is important to make it clear that we are prepared to act to obstruct people from doing that. The Government have the right and the power to confiscate passports. When people are resident in the UK but are not British nationals, we can cancel their leave to remain in the UK on the basis of such activity. I stress, as I have stressed since April 2011, that we advise against all travel to Syria. We of course advise people against going to fight in Syria, but we advise against all travel to Syria even for those who go there for more laudable motives. We are very limited in what we can do to assist people once they have gone there.
	Our work on the destruction of chemical weapons will, of course, continue.

Malcolm Rifkind: Although I welcome unreservedly the Foreign Secretary’s diplomatic efforts, does he acknowledge that neither he nor his American counterparts have any real clout on the Syrian moderate opposition because of our collective inability to provide them with any of the material help that they need to press home their objectives? Does that not contrast with the Russian Government’s ability to influence the Assad regime, as was demonstrated by their ability to deliver the sacrifice of all the chemical weapons within days, once the Kremlin had decided that it was necessary? If the west cannot give material help to the Syrian moderate opposition, must we not swallow our pride and work with the Russians to find the minimum that is required to bring this ghastly conflict to an end and to enable the international community to help the Syrians get rid of the jihadi terrorists who are threatening the whole of the middle east?

William Hague: Of course we work with the Russians. We discuss endlessly with the Russians, in any case, if there is any way in which we can together resolve the crisis. On chemical weapons, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, working together, have made the progress that we have described.
	I think that my right hon. and learned Friend goes too far in saying that we have no clout with the Syrian opposition. What he says is not true, in that stark form, of the United States and the United Kingdom. I have many extensive discussions with the Syrian opposition. I was with the leadership of the Syrian National Coalition in Paris yesterday and they do listen carefully to what we say. They know, of course, that we have sent them assistance in the past. It is not the lethal assistance that my right hon. and learned Friend has
	consistently called for, but we have sent a great deal of other assistance to help to deal with chemical attacks and to save lives.
	We have had to put on hold the delivery of that assistance because of what happened at the Bab al-Hawa border depot in December. To deliver assistance to the opposition we have to have confidence, and this House would expect us to have confidence, in its destination and in who will have control of it. We can resume and increase such assistance when we are satisfied on that point. That is of value to the opposition, and they are conscious of what the UK can do to provide that support.

Jack Straw: I draw to the attention of the House the fact that, as co-chairman of the all-party group on Iran, I visited Tehran as a member of an all-party delegation last week at the invitation of the Iranian Parliament.
	May I press the Foreign Secretary on the issue of Iran’s attendance at Geneva II? Iran was not present in June 2012, but the circumstances were very different, not least of which was that President Ahmadinejad was President of Iran at the time and not the much more moderate President, President Rouhani. Lakhdar Brahimi, the distinguished UN diplomat, has himself called for Iran to be allowed to attend Geneva II unconditionally. I plead with the Foreign Secretary to back Mr Brahimi, and to have a conversation with Mr Kerry who seems to be saying, according to news reports today, that the current Government in Iran have to sign up to a communiqué that is now 18 months old, Geneva I, and to which they were not a party and had no decision on whether to attend because they were not in that Government.

William Hague: The 30 June 2012 communiqué is 18 months old, but it is also the basis of the Secretary-General’s invitation letter to the participants in Geneva II issued on 6 January—last week. That is the basis on which we are going to Geneva II. The Geneva I communiqué is the basis of that letter: that is what we will be there to implement. Geneva I is not, therefore, just an old thing from some time ago when not everybody was there; it is the Secretary-General’s basis for the conference. It is therefore not asking too much to ask those who participate to express their support for that and their readiness to engage in a conference on that basis.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government have changed in Iran, and what we have been able to do on the nuclear issue has changed in that time. Nevertheless, from everything we can see, the active support of the Iranians for the Assad regime, which is now carrying out some of the terrible crimes I have described, continues today, even with a change of Government in Iran. That is the background and we must not forget that. That is why we are putting the pressure on Iran to say, “If you want to come, show very clearly that you are going to engage on the same basis as the rest of us.”

Richard Ottaway: Of the three groups in Syria—the regime, the Islamists and the Free Syrian Army—the weakest is the Free Syrian Army. As my right hon. Friend said, many have concluded that the choice is now coming down to one between the
	al-Qaeda-backed Islamists and the regime. Given that both are backed by Russia and Iran, however, is that not a false choice? The Islamists are happy to support the regime, which is why the regime is not attacking them. If the people of Syria are to get their country back, we should do all we can to support the moderate opposition in Syria and, if necessary, revisit the decision to supply only non-lethal weapons.

William Hague: There is a three-way contest; my right hon. Friend is right. Of course, in reality it is even more complex, because many different groups make up the Free Syrian Army and the groups that are affiliated to al-Qaeda. I would never accuse Russia—or, indeed, Iran—of supporting the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. They draw their support in other ways. Nevertheless, he makes the case for giving more support to the moderate opposition. I say again: we are ready to resume and increase our support through important but non-lethal supplies, provided we are confident about what will happen to those supplies. That is a condition on which this House would always insist.

Meg Munn: The situation in Syria is an indictment of the international community and our failure to take seriously the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. Is it not time for this Government and, indeed, the international community together, alongside the process in Geneva, to look seriously again at all options of intervention to bring this horror to an end?

William Hague: It is an indictment of the international community—I will readily agree with that—and I have often spoken myself of the failure of the UN Security Council and the international community. Nevertheless, that is a failure with which we have to work, because as we have found before, with the vetoing of resolutions at the UN Security Council, we are not able to win agreement in the UN Security Council for far less radical or interventionist measures than what the hon. Lady is calling for. Therefore, we have to tackle the situation in other ways: to relieve humanitarian suffering in all the ways I have described; to promote a political settlement, working with Russia wherever we can; and to ensure that the chemical weapons are disposed of. Yes, there would have been earlier solutions, but they were not practical at the Security Council, so they would not have been legal and would not have commanded international support.

John Redwood: If we cannot guarantee safe delivery of non-lethal supplies, would it not be particularly unwise and foolish to start delivering weapons into this cauldron? Is it not right to concentrate on diplomacy, which is not compatible with war?

William Hague: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are very much concentrating on the diplomacy. As my statement reflects, I am not proposing lethal supplies—I have always been clear that we would come to this House and have a vote if we were going to do that—but there is a role for non-lethal supplies, if they can be safely delivered and controlled, that save lives and help a moderate opposition to function, because without them diplomacy will not work. If it is only extremists and the Assad regime, diplomacy will never succeed, so
	there is a role for our support for the moderate opposition in that regard, but we must have confidence in how such supplies will be used.

Angus Robertson: All diplomatic progress involving Iran and Syria is welcome, but the Foreign Secretary is right to highlight the fact that the situation involving refugees in Syria is calamitous. It is also right to support refugees in situ in neighbouring countries, but there are thousands of refugees who have made it to Europe. Germany has accepted 80% of pledged places among Syrian refugees. Amnesty International has described the attitude of countries, including the UK, towards Syrian refugees as “shameful”. Why does the UK have such a poor record in not accepting Syrian refugees?

William Hague: It is clear from what I have said that the UK has a strong record on the humanitarian side. Our donation, of £500 million so far, is the biggest ever in our history and one of the biggest in the world. We are the second most generous nation in the world in this regard, and we are trying to help people, as the hon. Gentleman says, in situ. On the question of refugees, last year between January and September, we accepted 1,100 Syrian refugees into the United Kingdom for asylum, treating them on their individual merits, as we do people from other nations. That fact is sometimes neglected and overlooked.[Official Report, 16 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 14MC.]

Martin Horwood: I support the Foreign Secretary’s plea to the Syrian moderate and peaceful opposition to vote on Friday to take part in the Geneva II talks. However, if they show that willingness to overcome their genuine qualms and participate, can we reward them by stepping up support, in practical and operational ways, for the peaceful opposition, as called for in the letter by many honourable colleagues in The Times today?

William Hague: Yes, we can. I hope we can, and my hon. Friend will understand from what I am saying that I would like to be able to do so. I stress, however, that because of the difficulties that arose and the loss of control at the main depot in Bab al-Hawa, we had temporarily to put on hold the supplies of communications and logistics equipment we were sending in December. We will need to be assured that the restructuring of the supreme military council that is meant to be taking place over the coming days has satisfactorily addressed those problems, so that we can receive a high level of assurance in respect of the equipment we send.

Jeremy Corbyn: Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn(Mr Straw), I was part of the all-party delegation to Iran last week, which I put on the record. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement about the tentative nuclear agreement with Iran. If there is to be a successful Geneva II process, however, I agree with the former Foreign Secretary that it must involve Iran. If other countries are involved in the Syria talks and themselves support jihadist forces in the country, questions need to be asked about the amount of resources they are putting in. Why is it that the Foreign Secretary and, apparently, the United States
	are still opposed to Iran being part of the process, which can bring about a permanent peace and save a lot of lives?

William Hague: I can only reiterate what I said to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)who asked about the same point: it is not a dogmatic opposition in principle; we simply want those who attend Geneva II to be there on the same basis. Let me put the argument another way. If we think back to the Geneva I communiqué, which is now the basis of the peace talks to come, I do not believe that, had Iran been present at that time, we would have been able to arrive at that agreement on creating a transitional governing body in Syria. We all hope, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn said, that there will be a change of policy, but it is necessary to have a little more evidence of such a change than we have seen so far in order for Iran to play a constructive role at Geneva II. We would be very pleased to see in the coming days further signals of a readiness to play such a constructive role.

Alistair Burt: The House will welcome later today the spokesman for the president of the Syrian opposition coalition, and the moderate opposition could have had no more staunch supporter than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. If the negotiations in Geneva are to succeed, and if the imbalance of forces that my right hon. Friend described so graphically in his statement is not to be addressed by the Geneva process, how can some balance be made that will give the regime an incentive to negotiate as opposed to feeling that its position is particularly strong?

William Hague: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to what some of the leading members of the National Coalition have achieved, in the most difficult circumstances imaginable, in helping to bring together, in a country without any free political institutions, a coalition of people committed to a democratic and pluralist future for Syria. For the reasons my right hon. Friend described, it is important for people in other countries to help keep a moderate opposition in being and in business. We have contributed to that in various ways and, as I mentioned, we are ready to do so again, but we need assurances about how our assistance will be used. If the opposition go to Geneva II and the regime is not prepared to work on the basis of creating a transitional governing body drawn from regime and opposition, I think many people across the world will draw the conclusion that they should give increased support to that moderate opposition in the face of diplomatic blockage from the Assad regime.

Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for the update but so far I am still searching for a coherent British policy on Syria. If we want to be anything other than willing participants in the failure of the international community, would it not be a good start simply to say that the future of Syria will not include Assad?

William Hague: We have been saying for a couple of years that Assad has no role in the future of Syria. After all, the proposition that will be before us at Geneva II is the establishment of a transitional governing body formed by mutual consent from regime and opposition. It is
	inconceivable that any opposition group, however moderate or extreme, would give its consent to Assad’s being part of that transitional governing body. Nor is it realistic, after the death of 125,000 people and years of torture, abuse and murder, to think that Assad could ever again unite the people of Syria. I think it is clear to us and to most observers that he has no role in the country’s future.
	Our policy is very clear: to promote the political solution, to help keep a moderate opposition in being, to deliver humanitarian assistance, and to assist with the destruction of chemical weapons stocks. On those things I think we are fairly united across the House.

Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend has referred to a murderous regime on one hand and extremists on the other, and to the 2.5 million displaced people in Syria who are receiving no aid whatsoever in terms of food or assistance. Within that 2.5 million, the Christian community is probably suffering disproportionately. Will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure through the United Nations at Geneva II that that community is not dismissed as a sideline?

William Hague: My hon. Friend has made a very good point.This conflict has affected minorities in Syria, including Christians, particularly sharply and horribly. It is important for that point to be made, and it will be made strongly at Geneva II. It reinforces the case for seeking the political solution which alone can protect those minorities, including Christians, and for the National Coalition—the opposition—to be as broadly based as possible. I am pleased to say that there are leading Christians in the opposition ranks, and it is important for them to retain that broad support so that they do not fall into the trap of sectarianism into which so many have already fallen.

George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in recent weeks the jihadists—some of whom, as he conceded, are from these shores—have been promoting sectarian division between Sunni and Shi’a. Does he agree that any way forward must involve protecting not just the rights of Christians, but the rights of all people—of whatever faith—including their human rights? What guarantees does he think can be provided to ensure that that happens?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important point, which adds to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). It must be stressed that the people of Syria, in the main, are not extreme, and have not been sectarian in their history. This is a country which, for a long time, has been able to combine happily alongside each other people of many different cultures and religions. Extremists are taking advantage of the conflict in Syria, rather than the conflict’s being a reflection of the true nature of the Syrian people, and we need a political solution to be arrived at as soon as possible so that they can return to their true nature. That is not for the benefit of any outside power; it is for them, so that they can go back to the happier solutions at which they had arrived together, living alongside each other.

Sarah Teather: May I press the Foreign Secretary on his answer to the question about refugees? The 1,500 figure that he gave referred to those who had been accepted for asylum, rather than those who had been accepted as part of a co-ordinated resettlement programme. Just before Christmas I visited the Zaatari refugee camp, and saw a project run by the Jesuit Refugee Service to support refugees living in host communities in Jordan. The situation is dire, particularly for those who are very vulnerable, which is why I want to urge the Foreign Secretary to think again. We could make a real contribution to a co-ordinated programme of resettlement for the most vulnerable refugees, who could benefit greatly from coming here.

William Hague: There will of course be a variety of views about this, but I hope no one will think the United Kingdom has anything other than a strong record in trying to look after vulnerable people caught up in this conflict. We are currently providing food for 320,000 a month, medical consultations for 300,000 a month, and cooking sets and mattresses and blankets for 385,000 people. The United Kingdom is one of the most generous countries in the world in looking after vulnerable people affected by the conflict in Syria.

Mike Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House who he thinks is arming the jihadist al-Qaeda-linked groups in Syria and what discussions has he had with the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar about shifting their emphasis towards humanitarian assistance rather than arming al-Qaeda-linked groups?

William Hague: Gulf states also provide humanitarian assistance. For instance, Saudi Arabia has provided $373 million to the UN appeals, and of course in Kuwait on Wednesday we will be looking to some of the Gulf states to make huge contributions to the humanitarian appeal so we will be reinforcing this point. At the meeting we had in Paris yesterday, those states—including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—were very clear about channelling their support through the National Coalition and making sure it is fighting for people who want a democratic and pluralist Syria, and that is what we always look to it to do.

Mark Field: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s confirmation that the UK has made a substantial contribution to humanitarian aid and also in relation to chemical weapons decommissioning, but notwithstanding the strength of feeling we have heard across the House today, will he accept that it is the settled will of this House that there should be no military intervention by the UK in Syria?

William Hague: As my hon. Friend can gather from what I have said, I am not proposing that. There was no mention in my statement of military intervention in Syria. We are addressing this crisis in many other ways. I do not want to anticipate what the settled will of the House will be months and years into the future, but the Government are not planning for, and are not proposing, any military intervention of our own in Syria; he can be assured of that.

Paul Flynn: Did not this House on 29 August beneficially influence world opinion and reduce substantially the threat to the world from both chemical and nuclear weapons? Will the Foreign Secretary continue to resist the cries to give war a chance, and insist on the most likely path to peace which is through diplomacy, not through military intervention?

William Hague: I hope the hon. Gentleman heard the statement I gave a moment ago because I do not know how he could have got any impression that it was about anything other than diplomatic success and, through diplomacy, making sure the crisis is addressed as best we can. On the chemical weapons, I think we have had this disagreement before. There was a very important change of policy by Russia and by Damascus on chemical weapons in September, but I believe the origin of that was the fact that military action was being considered and debated in the United States, so sometimes diplomacy benefits from the soft power having some hard power behind it.

Rory Stewart: As the Foreign Secretary knows well, the reason why the moderate opposition are weak is unfortunately not only because they lack weapons. It would be extremely difficult and very dangerous for the west to try to micro-manage the balance of forces on the ground. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore please concentrate on ensuring that our humanitarian assistance is more focused, in particular in relation to Jordan? Refugees in Jordan are currently unable to work. Could we work with the Jordanian Government to ensure employment and livelihoods for refugees in Jordan?

William Hague: This is also a very good point because we are now seeing people who have been displaced for the long term: children who have been away from their schools for two or three years; people who have been without work for that amount of time. That is reflected in our redefinition of some of our aid priorities, so we are trying to help in more ways than just feeding people when they are in refugee camps. We will have to shift increasingly in that direction and my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary can speak about this in greater detail and with greater authority when she returns from Kuwait, but I very much take on board the point my hon. Friend makes.

Mark Lazarowicz: The news today that there have been serious discussions about localised ceasefires—particularly in places such as Aleppo, which has suffered badly over the past year—is obviously welcome. Does the Secretary of State accept that it must be a top priority for this Government and the international community to try to roll out those localised ceasefires as quickly and widely as possible? That would help to bring support to those who are suffering in the humanitarian crisis throughout Syria, and it would also provide a good foundation for the Geneva talks and for any settlement reached thereafter.

William Hague: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was discussing that matter with the other delegations at the Paris meeting yesterday. These are very difficult things to bring about, and I do not want to heighten expectations too early. In such a complex and brutal
	conflict, even localised ceasefires are difficult to bring about. However, it is important to pursue discussions about that matter with Russia, and it could well be an important track to discuss at Geneva II.

Crispin Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one area of progress, on chemical weapons, has been instructive? On that issue, western nations were able to agree to co-operate with Russia on a strategy. Until the parties to this conflict are no longer able to look to their respective international patrons for support because those patrons have agreed on a way forward, they will be pretty unlikely to come to an agreement in circumstances that Eugene Rogan has described not as “winner takes all” but as “loser must die”.

William Hague: Yes, I think there is a lot in that as well. It is generally true to say that there is now a greater appetite among some of the outside powers for a political settlement in Syria than there might be among some of the people who are fighting each other in Syria. It was clear in our discussions yesterday that all 11 members of the core group of the Friends of Syria supported a political settlement and wanted the opposition to go to Geneva II. That included Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states, which have been mentioned in these questions. We also need Russia to assist in bringing the regime to Geneva II in the same spirit, and that is what Secretary Kerry has been pursuing with the Russians today. We will all be pursuing it with them over the coming days.

Gordon Marsden: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s acknowledgement of the impact on Christian and other religious minorities of the al-Qaeda depredations in northern Syria. I also welcome his assurances of focus in that respect. May I press him further and say that one of the key issues is humanitarian aid? Many of the people affected will require resettlement in areas in which their families have lived for hundreds of years. It will also be important to extend diplomatic assurances to those people so that President Assad does not try to recruit them as proxies to shore up his own power in Syria.

William Hague: Yes, that is also true. The hon. Gentleman is looking ahead a bit, however. We are not yet in a situation where people can go back to their homes or be resettled, or where assurances can be given about the position of different communities in Syria. In a way, that would be a good problem to have. It is the next stage that we will need to move on to. Our overwhelming emphasis now is on staunching the bloodshed, but we will have to move on to those issues and he is quite right to raise them.

Anne Main: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment not to provide any lethal support to the so-called moderate rebels. When thinking about a transitional Government, may I also urge him to learn the lessons from places such as Bangladesh? It had a transitional Government put in place but they did not consider the outcomes in regard to the delivery of democracy for those people who were not part of that Government.

William Hague: A transitional governing body is no easy thing to bring about in any country, and, as I said in my statement, we must not underestimate the difficulty of doing that in a war-torn, divided country such as Syria. The provision to do so by mutual consent is very important, because through that a transitional governing body could just work, mutual consent being required for the membership on both sides. It is very important to uphold that commitment of our Geneva communiqué of 2012 as we go into the talks next week.

Graham Jones: Will any democratic settlement at Geneva II include or preclude Assad? Will it include or preclude those around him—those who are culpable in what has gone on? In particular, will it include or preclude the jihadists and the fundamentalists?

William Hague: I go back to what I have referred to before. What we are seeking—the basis of the invitation letter from the UN Secretary-General—is a transitional governing body formed by mutual consent. Such a thing, drawn from regime and opposition, would naturally guard against the extremes, as each side would have to agree to the representatives of the other. That would not be a recipe for Assad to continue, as I mentioned earlier, or for the al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists to have a role. Again, that shows the importance of our sticking to this principle and this formula in the forthcoming negotiations.

Penny Mordaunt: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what support his Department is providing to individuals working for aid agencies, and their families, to ensure that they are getting all the information and support they need to keep as safe as possible while carrying out their vital work, for which I am sure the whole House will wish to thank them?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to say that the people working for the aid agencies do an extraordinary job. They are often in danger, and quite a number have lost their lives in the Syria conflict. They are the unsung heroes, and she is right to refer to them in the House. Of course we do everything possible to provide the information and equipment they need, but if at any stage she or any other hon. Member thinks there is more we need to do on that, we are always open to ideas.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the advance copy of it. He mentions the E3 plus 3 agreement with Iran. What impact will that have on the sanctions against that country? Will there be an early release of them?

William Hague: As I mentioned to the House, we were able to announce in the past 24 hours that this agreement will come into force next week, on 20 January. That means that the sanctions relief we have offered Iran starts from then. That will involve the amendment of some European Union sanctions and United States sanctions, and it means that the US will unfreeze a certain amount of Iranian assets—that will be spread over the six-month period of this agreement. It is anticipated that this amounts to about $7 billion of sanctions relief for Iran, provided the Iranians are sticking to their part of the agreement on the nuclear issue. That agreement is
	then renewable for further periods of six months while we work on a comprehensive solution. So a limited measure of sanctions relief is available to Iran from 20 January.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend, with his command of history, will know that Britain, America and Russia have all had embassies sacked by mobs in Tehran, although in the Russian case that happened rather longer ago. Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to a change in attitude by the slightly more moderate regime in Iran, and indeed in Damascus, lies in persuading the Russians that they share the same interest in this as we do in the long run?

William Hague: That is a very important factor. I have often discussed it with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Prime Minister has discussed it with President Putin, and the American leaders continue to do the same. After all, it is in the interests of Russia, as with all of us, to make sure that extremism does not take hold, in Syria and in the wider region. That means that we all have to work together on bringing about a political solution. So we hope that, just as we have done that on chemical weapons, we will be able to do it during and around the Geneva II process to make a political process viable. We will spare no effort to work with Russia in bringing that about.

Mark Hendrick: I had a meeting earlier today with the chief of staff of the Syrian National Coalition, who claimed he had evidence that the Iranian and the Assad regimes are providing covert support for ISIS—the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant—and Islamists operating in Syria. He said that the target of ISIS is not the Assad regime but the Free Syrian Army. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that all attacks are taking place on the Free Syrian Army with the support of Assad? If he is and believes it to be true, does it not put a totally different complexion on the war in Syria in that the Free Syrian Army is on its own? We should look at more ways to support it and not just provide humanitarian assistance.

William Hague: I am aware of that suggestion. Whatever the truth of it, it is the case that the Assad regime has fed the growth of extremism. I cannot corroborate statements of it giving direct support to such groups, but if there were such evidence I would be interested to see it. None the less, it is its position, its politics and its brutality to the people of Syrian that have fed the growth of extremism. Assad is not the alternative to the extremists; he is producing them. Although I cannot confirm exactly what he says, I think it supports the same analysis, which means that we must do what we can to keep a moderate opposition in business, with all the constraints that we have discussed in our questions today.

Steven Baker: What is the Government’s assessment of the flow of arms into Syria from the arms markets that emerged in Libya after our action there?

William Hague: It is not possible to be precise about such things. Clearly, arms flow in from many different sources and in many different ways. Funnily enough our concerns about arms in Libya are more about the ones that
	remain there. There is more evidence of those arms remaining in Libya. We are working on a UN decommissioning programme to be able to take arms out of Libya and out of commission in Libya. Of course we cannot be precise about those flows of arms, but my hon. Friend can be sure that a high proportion of them that flowed into Libya in 2011 are still in the country. However, there would have been more of them had we not taken the action that we did, which helped to bring the conflict in Libya to an end.

Madeleine Moon: The Assad regime and the al-Qaeda affiliates have been targeting medical teams. It is extremely difficult for the people in Syria and in the refugee camps around the region to access complex medical care. Is it not time now for the UK to respond to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ urgent request for countries to open their doors to cases of complex medical need, particularly to those who have also been victims of torture?

William Hague: A number of views have been expressed in the House about that. I reiterate our very strong work and commitment to help people in such countries. I know she is making a slightly different point, but that is where we are concentrating our help. That includes providing 250,000 medical consultations within Syria as well as tens of thousands outside it. The UK is playing a very big part in trying to provide medical care to the most vulnerable people. I am afraid that I cannot offer her more than that at the moment.

Philip Hollobone: As we were responsible, almost 100 years ago, for drawing up the borders in this part of the world, it would perhaps seem most appropriate that we now play our part in helping to contain the Syrian crisis within those borders. I know that in his statement the Foreign Secretary said that we are giving £15 million to Lebanon and Jordan. Compared with our generous humanitarian assistance, that does not strike me as a huge amount of revenue for those countries. Will he assure the House that we are doing all we can to ensure that the conflict stays within Syria itself?

William Hague: Yes, but I am not in any way excluding the possibility that we will need to do more on that. That is what we have given so far and it is hugely appreciated by Lebanon and Jordan. Some countries are in a position to do much more; I mentioned briefly that Saudi Arabia has announced a $3 billion donation to build up the Lebanese armed forces, largely to be delivered and implemented by France. I hope that my hon. Friend will also bear it in mind that those countries are rightly receiving assistance from other quarters as they try to contain the crisis.

Gavin Shuker: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving the House this update. Will he talk about Russia’s blocking of a statement condemning the atrocities in Aleppo as well as a statement calling for immediate unfettered access for aid agencies? What more can be done to ensure that Russia lives up to its responsibility to the most vulnerable in this conflict, regardless of the politics?

William Hague: We must continue to discuss that with Russia. I mentioned in my statement the discussions today between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov. They covered some of these issues, such as how humanitarian access can be improved ahead of next week’s talks and the possibility of localised ceasefires. Of course, we are disappointed that Russia is not readier to agree international statements or resolutions at the UN that we ought to be able to pass and that it would be wholly appropriate to pass and enforce. The Russians are not prepared to do that, so we try to work with them in other ways to relieve humanitarian suffering and we will spare no effort in doing so.

Neil Carmichael: President Putin has made some small conciliatory steps in connection with the forthcoming winter Olympics. Is there any sign that the same logic and approach apply to his thoughts on Syria?

William Hague: We will see. The subject is very different and, of course, Russia has played an important role in the work on chemical weapons—it has been and remains indispensable in that regard. I hope that, following the discussions today between the US, Russia and the UN, Russia will demonstrate its readiness to deal with the Syrian regime. The Syrian Foreign Minister is going to Moscow this week and I hope that the Russians will say to him, “There are now certain things you have to do to relieve the suffering and to give humanitarian access, as well as to go to the Geneva talks, fully in the spirit of the Geneva communiqué, to bring about a transitional governing body.” We look to Russia to make those things plain to Damascus.

Rehman Chishti: It has been said that that Mr Jarba attended the Friends of Syria meeting in Paris and asked for certain guarantees and commitments before the Geneva II conference. What requests were made by Mr Jarba and what was the response of the Friends of Syria group? On Iran and the E3 plus 3 agreement, does the Secretary of State understand the concern raised by many countries in the middle east about the agreement? What steps have been taken to get those countries to have confidence in it?

William Hague: Of course we understand the concerns about the agreement with Iran. People will inevitably be sceptical about that and we have given extensive briefings about the detail, which has greatly reassured many countries. Those countries will want to know that we are monitoring it very carefully and that the International Atomic Energy Agency is playing the full role it needs to. We want to know that, too. They will want to see the evidence over the coming months that the agreement is working, which is completely understandable. In the meeting yesterday, President Jarba of the National Coalition asked for more support for the National Coalition, in whatever way any country around the table could provide it. I made it plain, as I did just now, that we can resume and increase the support we give through non-lethal supplies provided we can be confident about where it will be delivered to and who will be using it.

Bob Blackman: I welcome the measures that have been taken on the agreement with Iran on nuclear arrangements, but the key is to monitor compliance with the terms. Reports suggest that Iran is
	still pursuing the use of advanced centrifuges, which would give it nuclear weapons capability. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what additional arrangements are being made to monitor Iran’s compliance with its agreement with the United Nations?

William Hague: That is an absolutely crucial point. Our monitoring of the agreement involves the formation of a joint commission by the E3 plus 3 and Iran, and there is a very active role for the IAEA. It is important that all the agreements that Iran has made with the E3 plus 3 and the IAEA are enforced and monitored. The IAEA is determined to do that; it was agreed, in the implementation plan, that that would happen. We, and the IAEA, will monitor this very carefully indeed.

Guy Opperman: Last night, I returned from a four-day trip with the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists to the Nizip 2 refugee camp, just inside the Turkish border. Turkey’s amazing humanitarian action and our aid programme—its provision of food, in particular—should be complimented. While I was there, I met representatives of UNICEF, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and AFAD and, separately, Syrian opposition leaders and military commanders, as well as dozens of refugees, whom we are helping with winter clothing and a social action project. All the Syrians I met want their country back and are desperate to return home. I urge the Foreign Secretary to take all steps necessary to enable Syrian refugees to return to their homeland, both diplomatically through Geneva II, and ultimately through the provision of safe havens.

William Hague: I applaud what my hon. Friend and other colleagues have done in going to assist the people in that region, and I do not doubt at all the sincerity of the message that he brings back, which is that people want to be able to go to their homes in peace. That again underlines the urgency of the political process that we are beginning next week. It is a formidably difficult process, but it is right to start and to try a political process; that is the only sustainable hope of peace. He can be assured that we will give every effort to that.

Andrew Bridgen: There have been calls—some from unexpected quarters, and some from the Chamber today—for the UK to take a small number of refugees in this crisis. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is pure tokenism? If the UK were to take 500 refugees from a pool of more than 2.5 million people who have been displaced from their country, it would have very little effect. The answer really is for the UK to stick with its policy of supporting the refugees in situ, so that they can return to their country when the conflict is over.

William Hague: Ours is a generous policy, as I say. Whatever views people across the House hold on the subject, I hope that no one will say anything other than that the United Kingdom is among the most generous and big-hearted nations on earth on this. We are by some distance the second largest donor country in the world, helping hundreds of thousands of people with medical consultations in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. That is the right policy for the United Kingdom, and it is making a very positive impact.

Point of Order

Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, the Prime Minister said, in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, that the subject was one for
	“debate among the people in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 307.]
	However, we have learned that a Cabinet Office official working on Scottish constitutional issues and Andrew Dunlop, who is Downing street’s Scotland adviser, have been co-ordinating in Madrid with the Spanish Government in opposition to independence. Meanwhile, the official ITAR-TASS News Agency has cited a source in the Prime Minister’s office as confirming a desire in Whitehall for Russian support in opposition to Scottish independence. What options are open to Members to scrutinise UK Government special advisers, given the Prime Minister’s assurances that the issue is one for debate among the people in Scotland?

Mr Speaker: Order. First, Ministers are of course responsible for the accuracy of what they say in the House, in common with all other Members. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks what avenues are open to Members to enable them to scrutinise special advisers and undertake scrutiny more widely. The answer is that there are manifold mechanisms available to them, including the use of the Order Paper and, dare I say it, the ingenious, and some might think occasionally outrageous, deployment of bogus points of order.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

[Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC 86-xxiii, Chapter 11; and 25th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xxii, Chapter 1.]
	Second Reading

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for—well, for a number of different matters. Mr Edward Vaizey.

Edward Vaizey: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am, in fact, the Minister responsible for culture, communications and the creative industries. They are a number of different matters, but they are all linked.
	The sole purpose of the Bill is to support two draft regulations of the Council of the European Union. They both rely on article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which permits the adoption of a measure to attain one of the objectives set out in the European Union treaties but for which no specific power is given in the treaties, provided that it has the unanimous support of all member states.
	Thanks to this Government, who passed the European Union Act 2011 to ensure that no treaty could be passed without a referendum, such measures must be approved by Parliament. Parliamentary scrutiny of European measures is a matter of lively debate at the moment, and I am delighted to see so many of my colleagues who are experts on European matters present in the Chamber this afternoon. I am also delighted that it is this Government who have given Members of both Houses the chance to decide whether to approve such measures. I note that the Bill was debated in the other place, which is renowned for its scrutinising abilities, for precisely 37 minutes. The German Parliament carried out similar scrutiny before approving the measure—its measures are similar to ours—although I am not sure how long that debate lasted.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Vaizey: I will now take my first intervention.

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Europe for Citizens programme could be construed as no more than a provision to enable grant-making for organisations that tend to be of a Europhile capacity? Hopefully it would be resisted by the Government on the grounds that it would be likely to induce propaganda for the purposes of European elections and the like.

Edward Vaizey: I do not want to get ahead of myself, because I must first cover the specific regulations. My hon. Friend is a lawyer and an expert on European matters. I am not here to defend every measure. For example, I note that one of the measures audited in 2013 related to supporting the “European Network on forward policies and actions for seniors in Europe”. With one in five Europeans already in their 60s, our take on old age needs reconsidering. That programme
	focused on older people in the European Union, not European federalism. I will address the Europe for Citizens programme, to which he refers. It is one of two regulations—I say this for the benefit of all hon. Members taking part in the debate—that will be approved by the Bill.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Vaizey: I will now take my second intervention.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: How does the Minister’s earlier example meet the test of subsidiarity?

Edward Vaizey: It is not a question of subsidiarity. The question of subsidiarity applies to the whole programme, which has been in place since 2007 and supports a number of measures. I will come to examples of the programme shortly.
	Following my hon. Friend’s perceptive intervention, I hope he will indulge me for a few minutes while I deal with the first measure and see what interventions we have on that. The measure establishes a legal obligation on the European institutions to deposit their paper historical records at the European University Institute, which is based in Florence. Previously, European institutions have voluntarily deposited their archives at the EUI under contractual agreement, and the proposal is to make this obligatory. It is designed to provide long-term certainty that the archives will be preserved in accordance with recognised international standards at a single accessible location.

Richard Drax: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Vaizey: I will take my third intervention.

Richard Drax: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wonderful news if the EU were not archived?

Edward Vaizey: Speaking on a measure on archiving documents of European Union institutions gives rise to the possibility of many light-hearted comments. I have resisted making such comments, but that is in no way an indication that I would resist those of other Members about the interest, or otherwise, that these documents could engender when being read by future generations.
	A 1983 Council regulation already obliges the European institutions to preserve and provide access to the historical papers once the records are 30 years old, when they would no longer be in business use. Europe’s Council, Parliament, Commission, Court of Auditors and Economic and Social Committee, and the European Investment Bank, currently meet that obligation by depositing their paper archives with the EUI on a contractual basis. The proposed legal obligation reflects those existing arrangements and will not change the point in time at which the public can access historical records or the place at which they can be accessed.
	Making this practice a legal obligation will help to ensure transparency and scrutiny of the European institutions’ work, and it fits alongside this Government’s drive for greater transparency both at home and in Europe. We should all welcome a measure that allows
	for greater accountability around EU decision making, the more so because it will have no impact, financial or otherwise, on the UK’s own archives.
	As the European Union moves towards digital record-keeping, the measure also provides that the European institutions should, where possible, make their records available to the public in digital format. In addition, the EUI is to be given permanent access to each institution’s digital archives to fulfil its obligation to make historical records accessible to the public from a single location once they are 30 years old.
	The European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank will be exempt from the obligations under the proposed regulation, although they can deposit their records on a voluntary basis. The Court is exempt because of the large volume of records, most of which are case files often containing sensitive personal data that need to be quickly accessed to support its functions. The exemption of the ECB is due to its organisational autonomy and the fact that its historical records are subject to a separate 2004 regulation.
	The measure will be financed by the depositing European institutions from within their existing budgets and so will have no financial impact on the UK. Hon. Members will be delighted to learn that the Italian Government have made suitable premises permanently and freely available to the EUI to ensure that the deposited archives of the European institutions are preserved and protected in accordance with recognised international standards. The European Council has published the text of this measure and has received consent from the European Parliament. It is therefore ready for adoption, subject to the agreement of hon. Members.
	Let me move on to the second measure, on which I do not anticipate a great many interventions. It provides for the continuation of the Europe for Citizens programme for the period January 2014 to December 2020, building on the previous programme that covered the period 2007 to 2013. It is important to point out that there have been some crucial improvements to the programme. More effort will be put into monitoring and evaluating funded projects against published performance indicators and boosting the transferability of results to give a better return on investment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend in his hope that there would not be too many interventions, but before he gets into how this will be improved, may I ask him to look at paragraph 4 of the document? It says that this is being introduced in order to
	“bring Europe closer to its citizens and to enable them to participate fully in the construction of an ever closer Union”.
	The Prime Minister said a year ago that he did not want ever closer union. Will my hon. Friend square the circle?

Edward Vaizey: It is important to look at the kinds of programmes that will be supported by this measure. It is also important to note that when one uses the phrase, “Ever closer union”, it can mean many things to many different people. Perhaps if I spend some time giving examples of the programmes that have been funded and those that might be funded, we can have a wider, almost philosophical debate on the issue.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Vaizey: I can hear my hon. Friend making an attempt at a third intervention.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Fourth.

Edward Vaizey: It is my hon. Friend’s fourth attempt and I think it would have been his third intervention, had I accepted it. I expect him to make several interventions during my remarks and I will take them at the appropriate moment. I also expect him to make one of his formidable speeches, for which he has become legendary in this House. With his indulgence, however, I will elaborate on the point I was making.
	As well as highlighting the improvements in transparency and evaluation, I want to make the point that the commemoration element of the programme has been significantly increased. In the previous programme, commemoration was just 4% of the budget, but it now amounts to 20%. This is a serious point, because, of course, 2014 is the year in which we begin our commemorations of the great war, so I for one am pleased that the commemoration element of the programme will increase.
	It is also very important—this is also serious—to point out that the commemoration element of the programme goes beyond simply commemorating the great war. It will include funding to commemorate the second world war—that is particularly relevant given the 70th anniversary of D-day this year—as well as the victims of totalitarian regimes such as Nazism and Stalinism, and, of course, the holocaust.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On my hon. Friend’s earlier point about ever closer union and what it means, is he saying, as has been said to this House before, that we should not pay attention to the detail of the document and that we should accept bland assurances that it does not mean what it says?

Edward Vaizey: What I am saying is that one should look at the kinds of projects that have been funded in the past and the kinds of projects we expect the programme to fund in the future. Hon. Friends may well disagree with the funding of some events, both past and future, while other hon. Members of a different political persuasion may disagree with the funding of others. That is the nature of a programme that funds a huge range of projects.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, during these times of a rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, anything that remembers what happened in the holocaust can only be a good thing?

Helen Goodman: Good point.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend quite rightly achieves approbation from all corners of the House for his intervention. I know that the hard work he undertakes on these issues as a Member of Parliament is well recognised. It is a serious point that much of the programme’s funding supports issues relating to
	commemoration, which covers the holocaust, and some British organisations that commemorate the holocaust have received funding.

Roger Gale: I suspect that the House probably feels that the United Kingdom is quite capable of providing its own recognition of the holocaust and the great war and that we do not need any help from Europe. At the start of his remarks, my hon. Friend said that the Bill had been debated in another place. I suggest to him that the bill that matters is that to the British taxpayer. Could he tell us how much cultural citizenship costs the UK taxpayer?

Edward Vaizey: In this debate, we will find that many hon. Members are incredibly well informed and know a lot about the issue. My hon. Friend’s intervention is the second that tempts me to jump ahead in my speech. It is important, however, to answer a direct question directly: the budget is €185 million. I will come on to the budget, because there are certain things to say about it at the right moment.

Richard Drax: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Vaizey: I can hear another hon. Friend wanting to intervene, but I do not know whether or not the intervention is about the budget.

Richard Drax: On questions of percentages and budgets, I understand that 20% will go towards commemorations, but will my hon. Friend comment on the 60% for projects linked to the Union political agenda?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend neatly takes us on to the next element of the budget. Some 60% of the budget will support other measures to encourage greater friendship between people living in Europe. One example of something that will be financed is twinning.

Andrew Turner: Oh no.

Edward Vaizey: I was about to say that I did not know hon. Members’ views on the European Union, but I should perhaps say that I do not know their views on twinning, apart from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who has just made his view quite clear.
	As a constituency MP, I for one see that twinning brings great joy to my constituents. If you will indulge me for a minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, the market town of Faringdon in my constituency is twinned with Le Mêle-sur-Sarthe in France, and it intends to twin with Lipcany in the Czech Republic. The market town of Wantage is twinned with Mably in France—in fact, we even have a Mably way—and Seesen in Germany, and Didcot is twinned with Planegg in Germany and Meylan in France. May I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Terry Joslin, a Labour councillor in Didcot—he sadly died at the end of last year—who was very much at the forefront of Didcot’s twinning arrangements?

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that many twinnings, which are jolly good, are done at no cost to the taxpayer?

Edward Vaizey: I accept that point, and as a good Conservative, I am always in favour of anything that has no cost to the taxpayer. I also think that we all, as constituency MPs, know that when there is an opportunity for support, whether from the Big Lottery Fund or any other grants programme, we would encourage our constituents to apply for it, where appropriate.
	Another example of the kind of programmes that are likely to be supported is shown by the recent grant of €100,000 to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is a British organisation. It received the money last year to help European bodies understand how to run voluntary organisations. The rest of the budget will be spent on programme administration and the evaluation and dissemination of best practice between participating organisations.
	Like its predecessor, the programme will be implemented through grants based on open calls for proposals and through service contracts based on calls for tender. To provide for the analysis and dissemination of the results, these activities will be supported by regular external and independent evaluation. Priority will be given to projects using new working methods or proposing innovative activities. An interim evaluation report on the implementation of the programme will be drawn up by the European Commission no later than the end of 2017, and a final evaluation report will be drawn up no later than 2023. The programme has no new impact on UK domestic policy. Such activities have been supported since the programme first began.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister update the House on the size of the budget of the programme compared with the size of the budget of its predecessor, and on whether the budget reflects the search across the European Union—supposedly—for savings for the taxpayer in these straitened times?

Edward Vaizey: I will certainly do so, but to put the answer to my hon. Friend’s question in context, it is important to stress that the Bill will have no financial effect on the UK Budget. Some might say, for the sake of argument, that the money could be better spent in the UK, but the fact is that it forms part of the European Union budget that has been agreed, so money not spent on this European project would be spent on a different one. I therefore take my hon. Friend’s intervention as an opportunity to remind the House that the Prime Minister secured a significant reduction in the European Union’s overall budget. In fact, I think it is the first time the EU has ever reduced its budget.
	The original budget proposed for the programme was €229 million, which would have been a 7% increase on the budget for the 2007-2013 programme, which was €215 million, but I am pleased to say that, following the budget negotiations—otherwise known as the multi-annual financial framework—that figure came down to just over €185 million, which was a reduction of €44 million. It is also important to stress that the €185 million is spread over seven years and that we estimate the UK contribution to be about £2 million to £3 million a year. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Helen Goodman: As the Minister set out, the two purposes of the Bill are to provide proper archiving arrangements for European documents and to establish a programme for a citizens’ Europe. At first sight, they seem rather disparate, but they have a shared theme—history. The first is about preserving documents for future historians and the second is about looking back at the European events that catalysed the foundation of the EU.
	I hope the programme can be used to strengthen people’s understanding of the EU, although I am not wholly convinced that more knowledge will mean a less critical view of the current institutional arrangements.

Richard Drax: Would the hon. Lady agree that the more people know about how the EU works, the less likely it is to continue to exist?

Edward Vaizey: That should be a reason for some people to support the proposals.

Helen Goodman: As the Minister points out, that should be a reason for some people to support the programme, but actually I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for reasons I shall explain.
	I have some observations and questions for the Minister about these two major themes in the Bill. As he has explained, EU documents will be archived at the European University Institute in Florence so that future historians can benefit from complete records. The Clerk of the House has explained to me that our own material is archived in Victoria Tower. Will the Minister tell the House—[Interruption.] Could he stop talking to his Parliamentary Private Secretary and listen to me? Would the EU institutions be able to make duplicates in vellum as we do in this Parliament?
	The Minister said that the Bill does not cover the documents of the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. The ECB position is rather controversial, given our own decision, in 1997, to publish, after only six weeks, the meetings of the Monetary Policy Committee. Expectation management is an important part of monetary policy, so I wonder why we are not seeing the ECB papers in the same way. The whole exercise cannot be described as a measure to improve transparency, given the decision to keep everything secret for 30 years. Who decided that these documents should be kept secret for 30 years and why? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who sadly is not in his place, has commented on Mrs Thatcher’s approach to the miners’ strike, demonstrating how few people can fully understand the significance of papers when they are kept locked up for 30 years.
	The aim of the citizens’ programme is to improve how citizens participate in and contribute to the EU by strengthening remembrance and common values and encouraging a broader engagement and debate. The budget is €185 million, so by my calculation about £7 million will be spent in this country—not, I would suggest, a vast amount. The Minister has said what he thinks we will contribute to the budget, but I wonder whether he can say how much of it he thinks will be spent in the UK.
	As the Minister said, 20% of the money will go towards commemorating the world wars and victims of totalitarianism. The Government are spending some £50 million on commemorating world war one. If the remarks of the Secretary of State for Education and the decision to put Lord Kitchener on the £2 coin are anything to go by, the Government are embarking on an unnecessarily jingoistic approach, which this EU programme might usefully counterbalance.
	I want to ask the Minister how the funds will be distributed. It is unfortunate that world war one appears only fleetingly for children in key stage 3, so a little more understanding can only be a good thing. Will the money for the commemoration of the world wars be distributed in its own channel, or will it be bundled up with the money the Government are spending directly and through the Heritage Lottery Fund?
	As the Minister said, the major part of the moneys will be used on EU citizenship projects for learning and twinning. Since the major wave of twinning took place in the late-1970s, just after we joined the Common Market, and given that the EU now has 22 member states, it seems a good idea to give this initiative fresh impetus so that new relationships can be built across the Union.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I do not want to jump in on the hon. Lady, but there are 28 member states if Croatia is included.

Helen Goodman: I am happy to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman. His arithmetic is better than mine.
	I wonder whether some towns will choose to be twinned with places in Bulgaria or Romania. I do not know whether the Minister has heard anything about that.
	Projects for young people to learn about EU citizenship are particularly good, especially given the Government’s foolish decision to take personal, social, health and economic education, which included citizenship, out of the core curriculum. Young people are the most likely to self-identify as European. I hope that more information and education on, and more understanding of, Europe will mean that people will not be misled by the wilder claims about the European Union made by people who are Eurosceptic. However, I am not convinced that, once people know how the European institutions operate, their views towards them will be flattering.
	I have received some interesting information from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations about how the Europe for Citizens programme is operating. I hope that it will reassure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that the money will not just be taken up by Europhile institutions. It states that the grants have enabled
	“support for participation and democratic engagement”,
	which is surely a good thing; projects on the
	“impact of EU policies in societies”;
	and the
	“exchange of expertise between members in different countries”.
	When I was thinking about who might benefit from taking part in such programmes, I thought of the Minister. Many parts of his brief could benefit from a more collaborative approach with our European colleagues.
	For example, there could be collaboration on child protection on the internet, tackling the uncompetitive behaviour of the internet giants, and providing a proper copyright and intellectual property protection system. On the point about expertise, it might be worth looking at what some of our European colleagues do to prevent the export of heritage items, which is far more effective than what he is doing.

William Cash: On the hon. Lady’s comments about my intervention, does she agree that grants that might be made to organisations to promote European values, as they are called, should be evaluated against what is in the interests of all citizens? Should they be confined only to political organisations or to charities?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I was going to come on to the question of whether they should be purely political, but he will surely agree that there is a shared commitment in Europe to democracy and liberty, and that is it is fruitful for people to understand how they can exercise their rights within the European context and in the European institutions.
	It would have been better for these projects to be up and running before the EU elections in May. Why has it taken the Government so long to bring the Bill to this House? The Lords dealt with it at the end of July, when the Minister in the other place stated that his intention was for the Bill to receive Royal Assent by the end of 2013. Will the Minister say why the timetable has slipped? That is particularly unfortunate, as we are only four months away from the EU elections.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am slightly concerned that the hon. Lady ties the Europe for Citizens programme with the European elections, because to gain funding from it people have to sign up and put in their contract bid that they will support the European Union’s initiatives and be pro-European. It would be useful if the hon. Lady had bothered to read any background information on this before she stood up at the Dispatch Box. Surely it is not necessarily in the interests of democratic debate to have only one side of the argument funded by this programme?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman’s remarks are rather ungenerous. It is obviously important for people to understand what it is they are voting for. They are being asked to elect candidates and they need to know what powers the institutions have. I would have thought that could be shared across the House. I was struck by the energetic twinning arrangements in Oxfordshire.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the programme says that strand 2 will spend 60% of the money and that
	“It will give preference to initiatives and projects with a link to the Union political agenda”,
	so there is an underlying political agenda. I agree with my hon. Friend that to spend the money before the
	elections could have an improper influence on them. It would be unlikely to give money to the UK Independence party, for example.

Helen Goodman: The money will not be given to political parties in any case, so the hon. Gentleman’s concern about unfairness is somewhat misplaced. The fact is that the money will not be spent before the European elections.
	How will the money be publicised, so that we in Durham might benefit from it as much as people in Oxfordshire evidently have? How will people apply? It is crucial to the success of the project as a lever in raising people’s participation that it involves not just the same group of organisations that have a long-standing interest and involvement in European projects, but goes wider than that.
	I hope the evaluation is not too onerous, because as much could be spent on the evaluation as the sums of money that are being given out, which would not be efficient. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the arrangements are open and straightforward?

Richard Drax: Given that the EU accounts, as I understand it, have not been signed off for the past 15 years, how can anyone be confident that this money will go where it is meant to go?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the areas that have caused the European Union’s auditors to qualify the EU’s accounts. My understanding is that they do not include the Citizens programmes of education and learning for young people.
	I am content with the arrangements on the Order Paper for further scrutiny of the Bill. I do not intend to divide the House tonight, but I agree with the suggestion made by other Members that it is important that we encourage and facilitate non-political cultural exchange, for which the Minister has responsibility. Over the Christmas holiday I was looking at the BBC’s collection of the nation’s favourite poems. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the nation’s No. 1 choice is Kipling’s “If—”. I think that reveals something about the British, while the collection taken as a whole tells us something about our imaginary life and the value we place on our countryside. It would be fascinating if we knew more about the cultural life, views, experience and perspectives of the other member states, so I wonder whether the Minister has paid any attention to what we might do to facilitate more cultural exchange as well.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Helen Goodman: No, I have finished.

William Cash: I am most grateful to you for calling me at this opportune moment, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I was going to ask a rather pertinent question about the BBC. There has been a lot of publicity recently about what I think is called the media action trust. This is an organisation within the BBC that apparently also has its own premises there and has, so we are informed, been provided with substantial funds from the EU for training journalists and activities of that kind. I have raised this issue in the House in the past, but that is typical of the kind of thing that is going on in the run-up to the European elections.
	Let me say straight away that I do not have any particular concern about the first part of the Bill, which concerns the archives. There might well be some hidden problems buried in the archives in Florence that turn out to be a concern, but that is not what I am concerned about today. What I am profoundly concerned about, however—I shall vote against the Bill for this reason—is the question of European citizenship, which goes back to the treaties and the objectives of political union. One of the things that I well remember and that deeply concerned me in the very first part of the Maastricht debates, all those years ago, was the reference in the Maastricht treaty to conferring rights of citizenship on the people of the United Kingdom.
	There was a good deal of debate about that in this House at that time. Although that reference did not say specifically what “European citizenship” would mean, we now know where it has been intended to lead. We only have to look at what Viviane Reding, the senior vice-president of the European Commission, said last week to know that it is based on an absolute determination to go pell-mell for a full united states of Europe. The proposals in this Bill, which, if it were possible, I would prefer to describe as a disapprovals Bill rather than an approvals Bill, aim to provide money for the purposes of generating information about and supporting the study and promotion—that is the key word—of political union.
	I have with me with the full documentation from the Council of the European Union dated 17 September 2013. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has already rightly referred to the passage that says that preference will be given
	“to initiatives and projects with a link to the Union political agenda.”
	However—no doubt when he rises to speak he will also refer to this; I hope I am not pre-empting him too much—under the heading “Programme Management”, that document also says:
	“In general, preference will be given to grants for projects irrespective of their size but with a high impact, in particular those which are directly linked to Union policies with a view to participate in the shaping of the Union political agenda.”
	These provisions are said to be done under article 352. Those of us who have been involved in the whole process—I have the honour to be Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I have been a member of it for the best part of 30 years—may remember the old article 308, now replaced by article 352. Those associated with administrative law will know that where there is a statute, there is often a supplementary provision that allows one to do all such things as are reasonably incidental to the carrying on of the main functions. That is precisely what article 352 achieves.
	Although I deeply disapproved of the provisions of the Referendum Bill in most respects, which is why I voted against most of them, it is quite right that—and I am glad that the coalition Government have provided for this—for matters of this kind to be dealt with by Act of Parliament. This regulation and these arrangements are dictated by unanimity, which means that we could say no. I shall now provide a number of reasons to explain why I believe that this grant-making exercise is aimed at providing propaganda, as I see it, for purposes of political union. That is why we should say no.
	I heard what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said in her reasonable speech about the whole question of European elections, and I alluded to the same point in my intervention on the Minister. I believe that although not much money is involved, this will benefit organisations—I mentioned the word “charities”, but this measure will not relate solely to charities—that are politically motivated for the purposes of promoting the objectives under article 352, which amount to the whole integrationist process. I have in mind statements of the kind recently made by Mr Barroso, who said in the so-called blueprint for the future of Europe that
	“the European Parliament and only the European Parliament is the Parliament for the European Union.”
	That shows the sort of propaganda whose mechanism and funding will drive the argument further and further in that direction. As many argued in the documents relating to the Bill, this could be extended towards schools, for example. Some in the House of Lords spoke of greater engagement with schools, educational colleges and the rest. Then there is the BBC and the training of journalists, and so it goes on.
	If the money, albeit only £2 million, is to be tied under the contract and the tender by these arrangements, many of the organisations concerned will have a very significant impact because what they write will be reproduced in much of the press. There might then be, shall we say, £150,000 or £250,000-worth of grants, providing a very substantial opportunity to disseminate propaganda for the European Union.
	In the present situation, however, 95 Conservative Members—I believe it is really well over 100—have said that we should veto European legislation if it is not in our interests. I would be interested to know whether I am right—I believe I am—that this is mainly aimed at providing money for foundations, organisations and, as it specifically mentions, think-tanks to promote European policies and European integration, and not the other way round.
	At the same time a serious debate is taking place between those who are in favour of more integration and those who are against it. The Prime Minister is trying to find some middle ground, but it is crystal clear that what is also happening is the promotion of European integration, and this programme will assist that process. If we are to have an in-or-out referendum, albeit far too late in my opinion, I think it very important for the Bill’s immediate objectives to be confined to ensuring that no money is provided under the aegis of the United Kingdom, or with its encouragement, for the purpose of promoting activities in which we in this country have effectively said that we do not want to engage.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does my hon. Friend fear that money from this pot could be used at any point to promote the European Union prior to a referendum in this country?

William Cash: I sense that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not wish me to go too far down that route, but the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. That is a good illustration of why we need a provision—under the aegis of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report, which has been supported by numerous Conservative Members of Parliament—to ensure that we do not end up paying for the promotion of integrationist policies that are contrary to what we believe in.

Zac Goldsmith: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does the Bill contain any provisions or mechanisms that would prevent the use of money from this pot for propaganda purposes before a referendum in this country?

William Cash: That is an extremely important question, to which the answer is zero: none at all. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene in order to repudiate what I am saying, and to assure me that none of this money will be used for any propaganda exercises—that none of it will be given to think-tanks that are promoting the idea of the European Union—and to make absolutely clear that we are not, as a Government, supporting the promotion of propaganda for the purposes of political union in advance of European elections. The Minister is sitting with a Sphinx-like expression on his face. I suspect that he knows the answer, but is not terribly keen to give it to me.

Edward Vaizey: It is a poker face, actually, not a Sphinx-like expression. I will respond to my hon. Friend when I sum up the debate. There are so many Members in the Chamber this afternoon who are experts on this subject and who will want to make lengthy interventions to educate the House about the Bill that I do not want to stand in their way, given that I know I have a slot.

William Cash: There is another point, too. A very interesting statement, which I happen to know is true, was made under the aegis of the European Scrutiny Committee. In his letter of 19 November 2013, the Minister said that an agreement on the substance of the draft regulation had been reached by COREPER in March 2013. I need not spend too much time on that, because the COREPER problems are contained in our report, but the point is that the agreement to which the letter referred was ticked off by officials.
	I am not denying that the Minister has come to the House and said that he endorses this, and the same situation arose in the House of Lords. However, I want to emphasise that our report, which has been supported by all those Members of Parliament, identified that process as a matter of concern, because it had been dealt with by officials in the first place and ticked off by them, and then along came the Government and agreed to it. We had recommended that the whole matter be dealt with in a European Standing Committee. Our recommendation has understandably been overtaken by events, in the shape of the Bill, but we remain deeply concerned about the way in which the money could be used.
	I am always pleased to be able to be constructive, and to offer a tribute when it is required. I was glad to hear the Minister tell us—and I happen to know that this is true—that the amount of money in question started out as £229 million, and has been reduced to £185 million. I am glad he linked that to the reduction in the budget generally under the multiannual arrangements he described, but I would only make this point, especially on behalf of some on this side of the House: I put down the amendment that helped the Government to arrive at the decision that reducing the budget would be a good idea, because that was a unanimous decision that had been agreed to on both sides of the House.

Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend talks about propaganda and UK taxpayers’ money being used to fund it. Is he aware that, anecdotally,
	as we approach the centenary of the first world war it is being referred to by the European Union as the European civil war?

William Cash: I am extremely interested in that because I recall that a serious dispute arose only a few days ago, when the distinguished Secretary of State for Education made remarks regarding the manner in which world war one was being addressed. The debate ultimately turned on the question of whether or not it was Germany that started the first world war, and I have no doubt at all, and nor did A. J. P. Taylor.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman rightly said earlier that the Chair would be keeping a watchful eye to ensure that this debate sticks to the purpose of discussing this very short Bill. At the moment the hon. Gentleman is just within the bounds of discussing Europe for citizens. He may be straying somewhat, however, and I am sure he will bring his remarks back to the subject under discussion.

William Cash: I certainly will, and precisely because of that reference to world war one. I took part in the debate on the Floor of the House about the idea of our helping to commemorate world war one, and I believe we can do it, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, on our terms without European money. It is about remembrance, and that is most emphatically in this Bill, as I am sure all Members of this House will recognise, so when I referred to the question of world war one, I was referring to the remembrance aspect of this strand of the programme. I would like to make it clear that I am very much in favour of that and in no way would want to prevent substantial remembrance events from taking place. Indeed, I shall be going to Normandy next year, where my father was killed in the second world war, and won the military cross, at Maltot near Caen. I shall be going there to commemorate all the brave men and women who died in the second world war and also to pay tribute to those who took part in the first world war. I am not against the principle of this, therefore, and I am very much in favour of moneys being provided for it, although I think we can do it on our own terms and we do not need this Bill to do it.
	There is one final point I wish to make. I think the entire debate that we have had in the last few days about whether or not there should be vetoes and whether or not there should be disapplication of legislation is very important. For the reasons I have given, and because of the way in which the money, which is our money, is being spent by the European Union on projects that are not consistent with the voters’ wishes in general, this is not the kind of thing I would want to support. Furthermore, that is why I shall be voting against this Bill. I am also extremely surprised because I do not think the Minister is in any way disagreeing with my general proposition that, for the reasons set out clearly in the programme itself, this money is going to be made available to those who promote the political objectives of the European Union and the citizenship that goes with it and will provide substantial grants for that purpose.
	All of these points are reasons why we should exercise a veto. Indeed, this proposal would provide a perfect example under my parliamentary sovereignty Bill, which
	I introduced a few months ago. If 100 Members were to decide they did not want something like this, I hope that would lead to its being vetoed.
	In summary, I do not approve of this approvals Bill. This is all about democratic decision making. Let us bear in mind that the draft regulation is indeed a regulation, which is of a higher order even than a directive. We have to comply with every aspect of a regulation. I have great affection for the Minister, and I have heard what he has said. I greatly approve of almost everything he does, but not this measure. This should be a European Union disapprovals Bill.

Charles Kennedy: Although we have just passed the auld Scots new year, this is the first chance I have had to congratulate you on your new appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the context of another debate that is going on outside this place, which is not unrelated to Europe in some respects, it is good that a Scot has been elected by her colleagues to such a prominent and important UK constitutional position. Long may that capacity continue in the United Kingdom.
	We are talking about another Union today, however. The matter of the United Kingdom draws the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and me together, but that other Union has forced us apart for 30 years. I shall not echo his concluding remarks about the question of a veto. Were that to be established as governmental and Commons practice, he would want to apply it even to something as gentle, timorous, limited and constrained as this European Union (Approvals) Bill. That would certainly vindicate my view that his election to the chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee was akin to putting King Herod in charge of a maternity ward. Indeed, he has proved that in his attitude to this generally meek, mild and inoffensive measure that the Minister has put before the House tonight.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Actually, such a veto already exists. The measure that I like to call “Bill’s Bill” would not even apply to this. I think the right hon. Gentleman followed us through the Lobby on the EU legislation that gave us a veto on the Bill we are discussing today. So, timorous though it might be, we already have the ability to veto it.

Charles Kennedy: I gather from the hon. Member for Stone’s speech that we are going to face a Division on the Bill’s Second Reading, so the House will have an opportunity to decide. The Minister will be aware of the presence of some notable evergreens who remember the days, and particularly the nights, of the Maastricht saga in this House. He will know that, on this Bill, he has the backing of the Government and, I would imagine, of a swath of the parliamentary Conservative party. He also has the backing of Labour, as the official Opposition, and I think I am correct in saying that he has the unanimous backing of the Liberal Democrats, although I never seek or aspire to speak for them in any leadership capacity or in an ex cathedra manner.
	Before the Christmas recess, I raised a question with the Deputy Prime Minister, my party leader, who was standing in for the Prime Minister. I pointed out that there could be quite a difference between Government
	rhetoric on Europe and the reality. The Bill is interesting because, on this occasion, the rhetoric and the reality are as one. The hon. Member for Stone is correct—I have read the correspondence—to say that the Minister pointed out in the early stages of this measure that the Government were not pleased about what was then a projected percentage increase in the available budget, and that they would seek, through negotiation, to push that sum in the opposite direction. I congratulate the Government on their act of positive engagement at European level, which has achieved exactly that. Those cost reductions are to be welcomed, and the rhetoric of the Government has matched the delivery. That makes it all the more easy for people like me to support the Government in the Lobby on this issue. We have also supported the Bill in the Lords, as my noble Friend, Baroness Falkner, made clear.
	I do not wish to dwell at all on the established practice of the European University Institute being based, located and accessed in Florence and that now being given legal status as a result of this measure. However, I want to say a word or two about the second half of the Bill, which deals with the Europe for Citizens programme, where I wish to make a contribution not on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but in a personal capacity on behalf of the European Movement, with which I have been associated for a number of years—I have had the privilege and pleasure to be its UK president. As the Minister knows, the European Movement is all-party and, most significantly, as I always say, non-party in its composition. It has been with us, in this country and elsewhere on the continent, since the formation of Europe itself—the political Europe in the aftermath of the second world war. Over the decades it has made a notable and distinguished contribution to the dissemination of knowledge—genuine knowledge, not propaganda—through schools, local voluntary organisations and so on.
	The European Movement suffered in the era of the Blair Government through the launch of Britain in Europe. As we all know, Britain in Europe was not so much a case of “Waiting for Godot” as of waiting for Gordon; it was a two-act play in which nothing happened, twice. The Prime Minister assembled his pro-European forces and marched them to the top of the hill on more than one occasion, and absolutely nothing came of it. The group that suffered most during that period of raised expectation followed by zero was the long-standing European Movement, which was rather eclipsed by Britain in Europe and has been clawing its way back ever since.
	The European Movement is central to the second part of the Bill, because its entire raison d’être fits ideally with precisely what the Bill talks about. The characteristically excellent Library research paper states that in an explanatory memorandum of 26 January 2012, so just under a year ago,
	“the Government approved of the proposed simplifications to the programme’s administration”—
	the Europe for Citizens programme—
	“and observed that the programme reflected, and could potentially support, the UK Government’s aims and programmes, in particular the Big Society agenda and Positive for Youth. There were also potential benefits to UK civil society organisations, local authorities and organisations, and grassroots sports and culture projects.”
	The constitution and raison d’être of the European Movement fit ideally within what the Government have pointed out, but here comes the rub: the European
	Movement used to enjoy a direct subvention from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That came to an end in Mrs Thatcher’s days, and perhaps that is no great surprise. What is perhaps a wee bit more surprising is that nothing was ever restored in the long years of the Labour Government that occurred later. I raised the issue with both Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Brown but to no avail. It is not a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It has, in the past, been a matter for the FCO, although if DCMS wished to enter and make good the breach, I can assure the Minister that it would be welcome to do so. I hope that he will take this opportunity to point out that there is a bit of an irony that the European Movement is often offered practical support, through the use of facilities, by many European consulates and embassies within the UK yet receives nothing by way of practical support from our own FCO.
	When we are passing a Bill such as this, with the very things that the Government are highlighting approvingly and the potential that this Bill can bring, it does seem a bit ironic, if not perverse in the extreme, that the European Movement is getting overlooked in this way. Wearing that hat, I make a plea to the Minister to draw the matter to the attention of his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to look for a little bit of largesse as we reach the closing stages of this coalition Parliament.

William Cash: I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman, not least because, from his perspective, the European Movement does its job. However, is he not over-concerned about this matter? Surely, under these arrangements, he should expect the European Movement to get the moneys, because that is made clear under the Bill. I may not believe that we should pass the Bill, but if it does go through, as seems likely, I believe that the European Movement will benefit. Is he not being a bit over-anxious?

Charles Kennedy: I am less anxious now than I was just before I accepted that intervention. If the European Movement makes an application to such funds, I will be able to quote an opponent of the very measure that gives rise to such access as well as supporters such as the Minister and me. I hope that that might help its prospects as and when it makes an application. For the first time ever in nearly 30 years in a European debate, I can look at the hon. Gentleman, regard him as my hon. Friend and say, “D’accord”. I am most grateful to him.
	In conclusion, one thing that always bedevils the European debate is the meaning of vocabulary. The classic is “federalism”, which has a very different meaning the minute we cross the English channel to what it has come to mean not least in the tabloid press in this country. Another example is the term “ever-closer union” on which we have touched. Of course it has its antecedents with the initials ECU, which was used in a slightly different context several decades ago.
	As we are seeing in the Scottish debate, and as I think we can see in the European debate—these measures can assist in this process—the words “ever-closer union” could be more appropriately replaced with the words “ever-closer understanding”. The more that the practical implications, particularly for citizens’ rights, in the second
	part of this Bill create a climate of more accessibility and greater, ever-closer understanding, the better it will be.

Neil Carmichael: There is a huge amount about the European Union that I would like to change. Indeed, all organisations of that type need to be reformed, and there is a huge opportunity coming up. The Prime Minister’s commitment to a referendum in 2017 is predicated on the fact that we will also see substantial changes. I would like to see a lot of changes, particularly the deepening and widening of the single market to include energy. I want to see more emphasis on productivity across Europe, and more capacity for European countries to trade with each other and, above all, strike a bigger punch in the global economy as well. That is all about ensuring that the European Union is fit for purpose. I am, therefore, by no means immune to the idea that the European Union needs to be reformed and changed. However, let me first celebrate the fact that we are today debating this issue, which is down to the coalition Government who passed the European Union Act 2011.
	This is a fabulous opportunity for us to demonstrate the value of that Act, because it is through that Act that we are making this decision. It is proof that Parliament—I am talking about this Parliament, but other Parliaments could pass similar legislation—can indeed exercise some authority over the decision making of the European Union. The Government should be congratulated not just on being bold enough to pass that Act but on being so easily able to use it in a situation such as this.
	Importantly, this legislation is founded on the treaties to which we have signed up. Those treaties require, in this particular case, unanimity, which gives the decision we are making even more force, which is useful. That does not mean that we should be handing out red cards every time we think about an issue, because we also must ensure that the European Union works. A single market is one example where we need a more considered and conciliatory approach to ensure that it operates not just for our benefit but for that of everybody else in the European Union, particularly when we are negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States.
	Such decisions require unanimity in the Council of Ministers, and our Minister will not be able to nod the matter through unless or until we vote accordingly tonight. That is a clear statement that this Parliament has more power than it did before, and that is down to the European Union Act 2011. When we confront either the next general election or the referendum, we will be able to say that we have delivered for Parliament more capacity to influence the situation in the European Union.
	Having talked about the Bill in a constitutional context, I now want to move on to the measures it contains. It is a good idea to move all the archives to Florence, particularly to the European University Institute, which I have visited. It is obviously logical to have everything in the same building. None the less, I cannot imagine that many people would want to visit Florence just to look at the archives. If that is the case, they are indeed committed to something that is not as exciting as other things they might like to find. The fact is it is right to have archives for the European Union. Historians
	will want to know how things unfolded, and will want to be able to access such findings, so I am happy with that measure.
	On citizens and, effectively, promoting the European Union through the fund, it is sensible to take into account the Minister’s remarks on twinnings. In my constituency, a large number of towns and villages are twinned. They enjoy the experience and get a huge amount of cultural advantage from it, as they meet many people from different regions. Stroud itself is twinned with Saint-Ismier near Grenoble, and I find the linkage with the people there extraordinarily valuable, but it is neither overtly political nor party political in any sense. The people in the twinning organisation are Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour party supporters—there are some—independents and those who are not interested in politics at all. The linkage is first and foremost cultural.
	I will not go into detail about all the things that will be supported by the money, because Members might raise an eyebrow about some of them. In broad terms, however, this is a reasonable amount of money spent in a reasonable way, especially as it has already been allocated through the budget.
	My last point is a territorial one. In the explanatory notes, we are reminded that the Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Scotland might make the foolish decision to leave the UK, in which case it will effectively leave the European Union, and that may well raise an issue for this measure. I remind the House that we should be absolutely emphatic in our view that Scotland should remain a member of the United Kingdom and, therefore, a member of the European Union. These matters should be discussed in 2017 when we have had an opportunity to recalibrate some of our policies and reassess where we stand, and—fundamentally, in my view—we should then ensure that Britain’s membership of the European Union continues through a reformed, modernised and, in many cases, vastly reduced EU, but one in which business can thrive, trade is developed and our punch as a country and as a continent are enhanced.
	It is absolutely right that the 2011 Act was passed. The Bill is an example of the value of that Act, and I hope to see more opportunities to show that in the months and years to come.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), because I am going to start my speech with a similar point to that with which he finished his. It is interesting to see how we got to the point of having this debate. As the House knows, the legal position is that the UK now holds a veto over these proposals under the EU treaties and section 8 of the European Union Act 2011. The Government are not permitted to support the proposals or abstain unless they are approved by Parliament.
	The European Union Act is the much-heralded Act that means that we, as the UK Parliament, are getting scrutinising some aspects of European business that have never been properly examined before by nation state Parliaments. Our Government should be congratulated on that and I thank them for the opportunity. To provide such parliamentary approval, the Government have introduced this Bill, and hence we have the debate today.
	As we have heard, the Bill has already been approved by the House of Lords with minimal debate, but unless the House of Commons approves it the Europe for Citizens programme, for example, will simply fall. The UK will have to block that programme in the Council of Ministers and it will not be able to go ahead. To put it simply, voting against the measure means that Parliament is telling the Government to veto this element of EU spending. It is a welcome development for Parliament to be able to scrutinise such spending in such detail. I was pleased to hear that the Minister has done some of his homework and he has done very well at getting up to speed on the matter.
	As a number of Members have mentioned, the Bill will also approve a pretty uncontroversial proposal, which is also subject to section 8 of the 2011 Act, that will require most European bodies to deposit their historical archives with the European university institute in Florence. I have a “Boring but important” box in which to file things in my office and also a “I don’t give a toss” box; this measure would certainly be flung into the latter. There is no reason to talk or get excited about that measure.
	There is good reason, however, to talk about the Europe for Citizens measure. I first came across the measure during my work not as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee of this Parliament but as a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands, which I was for 10 years, when I sat on both the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control. When, as a Member of the European Scrutiny Committee of this Parliament, I saw that the Government were proposing to support a draft EU regulation re-establishing the Europe for Citizens programme for the period from 2014 to 2020 it caused me to raise an eyebrow. I have many concerns about the programme—I have harboured them for a long time—and I want the Government to alter their position so that the UK and other EU countries are not saddled with funding what is likely to be wasteful pro-European propaganda, political in its very nature.
	Ages ago, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, I asked questions of the European Commission about what organisations would get funding from the programme. I will talk about some of them, but let me say first that we are not talking about one or two organisations. I have in my hand a list of all the organisations that received funding from that budget—I will not read it out, as it has seven or eight pages of closely typed words. The copy I have brought with me is just for 2007.
	I was concerned then about the level of transparency with which those organisations spent their money, with the European Commission’s evaluation of that programme and with how the moneys were spent. I am pleased to hear that the European Commission has decided at least to say that it has decided to up its game in evaluating the programme. Will the Minister tell us whether that is an admission by the European Commission of its failure to do things properly in the course of the previous programme? Lots of money was wasted on a number of projects, some of which I will detail later.
	I would like to hear confirmation from the Minister of whether any official or Minister of a UK Government—either this Government or the previous Government—has raised any concerns about how money is prioritised and spent in the Europe for Citizens programme. I doubt that has ever happened.
	The preamble to the draft regulations introduces the Europe for Citizens programme with the following words:
	“While there is objectively an added value in being a Union citizen with established rights, the Union does not always highlight in an effective way the link between the solution to a broad range of economic and social problems and the Union’s policies.”
	If one was Greek, one would probably say that those policies were the cause of the problem, not the solution. The preamble continues:
	“Hence, the impressive achievements in terms of peace and stability in Europe, long-term sustainable growth”—
	interesting—
	“stable prices, an efficient protection of consumers and the environment and the promotion of fundamental rights, have not always led to a…feeling among citizens of belonging to the Union.”

Kelvin Hopkins: I apologise for arriving late to the debate. The hon. Gentleman talks about stable prices, but prices have started to fall in Greece and deflation is a much more serious concern for anybody who understands economics than inflation. Greece faces a serious problem and prices are hardly stable.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I understand the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has just relayed. That just goes to prove that what the European Commission believes to be happening and what is happening are two completely different things. Indeed, the Commission is quite Orwellian in its interpretation of what goes on around it.

Richard Drax: Surely the evidence that it is not working is there for all to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is an expert on such matters, as the Minister recognised, so why are the Government not listening to the experts and looking to act on the evidence?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Fortunately, that is one for the Minister to answer. There are plenty of experts on both sides of this very political argument and one point that I shall continue to make during my speech is that this is a very political matter that should therefore not be funded by taxpayers’ money.
	It is interesting to see that the European Commission recognises some of the issues it faces. The preamble continues:
	“In order to bring Europe closer to its citizens and to enable them to participate fully in the construction of an ever closer Union, a variety of actions and coordinated efforts through transnational and Union level activities are required.”
	In other words, the solution to some of the issues we face today is not less Europe but, according to the European Commission, more Europe, and to ensure that people think that way the Commission will pay for a bunch of projects to try to tell them that that is the case.
	Article 1 of the draft regulation states that the general objectives of the programme are
	“to contribute to citizens’ understanding of the Union, its history and diversity”
	and
	“to foster European citizenship and to improve conditions for civic and democratic participation at Union level.”
	I am pretty sure that that is a reference to the European elections, which is slightly concerning. That, together with the preamble, suggests that the programme is aimed at lauding the European Union as a political project with, as I will demonstrate, many a federalist overtone. That is reinforced by the fact that article 6 of the proposal states that the programme is open to
	“stakeholders promoting European citizenship and integration”.
	In other words, one can apply for money from the programme only if one believes in one side of the political argument.
	I heard what the Minister said about the collaboration element of the project. Like everyone else in the House, I supportive any attempt realistically to encourage the commemoration and remembrance of important events in the history of Europe, volunteering, or participation in the democratic process, where there is genuine enthusiasm for it, but I am greatly concerned about trying to force one particular political viewpoint down peoples’ throats.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea that the Bruges Group, or the European Foundation, of which I have long been the chairman, could, if we wanted to—I do not think that we would want to—successfully apply for any of this financial support is simply pie in the sky?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am sure that my right hon. Friend—is he right hon. yet?

William Cash: No.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My soon-to-be right hon. Friend’s organisation could benefit from funding, if it changed its basic principle on belief in the European project, but he is a very principled gentleman and would not do that, so no is the simple answer; there would be no access to EU funding for those groups.
	I am supportive of trying to encourage the things I mentioned, but I do not believe that that is best achieved by a European Union spending programme that has its decision making centralised in the European Commission, and in which everything is tied to a supportive view of European Union political integration. The draft regulation’s preamble even asserts that there is a link between remembrance and European identity; I struggle to see that link.
	The Government’s support for the regulation calls a number of points into question. It sits uneasily—does it not?—with the Prime Minister’s speech on Europe on 23 January last year, which made it clear that Britain has no desire for ever closer union with other EU countries in any political sense. The Prime Minister also said:
	“There is not, in my view, a single European demos.
	It is national parliaments”—
	not EU institutions—
	“which are, and…remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.”
	The regulation, which we might be asked to vote for, would establish a political programme, which we would fund, with exactly the opposite ethos. How can that be?
	Moreover, the regulation states that the programme would have a budget of €185.5 million, which, according to the Google currency converter last night, is about £156.5 million over the multi-annual financial framework period. The Government have estimated that the UK will meet about 11.5% of the cost of the multi-annual financial framework, after the rebate is applied. That means that the UK may end up paying roughly £18 million for the programme, over its course. The shadow Minister said that we expect to receive about £7 million back. That is not a bad return on European money—normally, we pay in a fiver and get £2 back—but the money comes back to us with caveats on how it should be spent, and who it should be spent on. I understand the Minister’s point about the general budget envelope, but there are better ways that we could spend the money; we could spend it on much more worthy projects in the UK, without the involvement of a middleman with sticky fingers in Brussels.
	The House might be interested to know how much money was spent on the previous Europe for Citizens programme, which ran from 2007 to 2013. Most of this information comes from budget questions relating to 2013, because it is best to have the most up-to-date information, and from a compendium of summaries of reports submitted last year under strand 1 of the programme, produced by the European Commission agency responsible for selecting projects, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. As I mentioned, I have followed this issue for quite some time.
	Let us start with a nice, friendly organisation, the Transeuropa citizens festival, an annual festival that, in 2013, took place in October in various cities simultaneously. Page 4 of the Commission’s compendium says that it took place in nine cities, but the festival’s website claims that it took place in 13: London, Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Bologna, Prague, Bratislava, Belgrade, Warsaw, Lublin, Sofia, and Cluj-Napoca in Romania. The compendium’s summary says:
	“Transeuropa Citizens Festival is an annual festival of citizenship happening across Europe. For the European Year of Citizens it will take place in 9 cities simultaneously in October 2013 and will celebrate free movement. The festival promotes active citizenship: it is made by and for citizens from throughout Europe (particularly central and eastern Europe). About 300 active citizens”—
	I have no idea what they are—
	“will meet and work together to make events which promote their vision of Europe to a wider public”,
	so it is an interesting festival.

Richard Drax: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am most grateful to him for giving way a second time. If this nightmare continues, can he foresee a time—say, in 10 or 20 years—when countries that do not participate in these awful affairs will be fined for not doing so?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The few times in my political career when I have not relied exactly on facts, I have always stumbled and fallen over, so I will keep to what has happened and is happening, rather than having a guess at what might happen in future.
	The 300 individuals, and the people they then talk to, will
	“act as European Citizens of the future and peer-leaders. The festival will focus on the issues of precarity, poverty and solidarity
	in a Europe facing the financial crisis, as well as themes of common goods, media pluralism, migrants and Roma rights and the fundamental rights given by Europe.”
	Obviously, to be involved in this scheme, one has to approve wholeheartedly of the application of the EU charter of fundamental rights by the European Court of Justice. Those interested in Roma migration should note that the festival was held in London, as well as many other European cities, to promote that sort of thing.
	Last year, the festival was awarded €149,000 from the Europe for Citizens budget. It appears that the 2011 festival was awarded €150,000. In 2010, European Alternatives Ltd was awarded €40,000 for a project called “Transeuropa citizens”. In 2009, the same company was awarded €36,300 for a project called “active and transnational citizens in dialogue”. In 2008, the company was awarded €24,800 for a project called the “active and transnational citizenship programme”. I wonder what all these programmes did, or do; from the preamble, one can probably guess exactly what they did.
	In addition, European Alternatives Ltd has been awarded grants to fund its existence, which the Commission said it would cut out; no longer could organisations bid for money simply to run themselves, so that they could bid for more European money to run projects for the Commission, so that they could bid for more money from the Commission, so that they could run more projects for the Commission. That was not the case here. In 2012, 2011 and 2010, it was awarded a €100,000 annual operating grant. In 2009, it did a bit worse: it got only €60,000. This one organisation was awarded, all in all, approximately €760,000 from one section of the Europe for Citizens programme budget over the period from 2007 to 2013. Bear that figure in mind when I come on to the sort of grants that have been issued to projects in the United Kingdom.
	Let us look at another example of an organisation that has received money from the Europe for Citizens programme. The grants were intended to support the running of the organisation itself, so I am pretty sure that it would not exist were it not for this funding. It is the French think-tank called—perhaps Members will be able to work out why it has been awarded funding—Notre Europe, the Jacques Delors Institute. It was set up by Jacques Delors in 1996 after he stepped down as European Commission President. It aims to contribute to the debate on the future of Europe and to influence decision makers. We are paying for an organisation to try to influence decision makers in a highly political way on the future of Europe and other European integration matters.

Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he keeps referring to Europe, as so many people do, when he really means the European Union. They are two different concepts.

Chris Bryant: He should have learnt that by now.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is quite right. I will try to remember to say “European Union”, but if I slip up and say “Europe” by mistake, please add “ean Union” for me.
	Notre Europe’s handy charter states:
	‘When reflecting on its mission, Notre Europe continues to take its cue from its founding president, Jacques Delors. Besides the masterstrokes the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty represent, and their two great attending projects, namely the single market and the economic and monetary Union, European integration owes him one of the most dynamic and inspired periods of its history. A virtuoso in the art of working the Community method and its famous “institutional triangle”, he can rightly join the ranks of Europe’s founding fathers. It is his vision, which Notre Europe aims to grow and perpetuate.’
	Let us examine what Notre Europe does and its principles:
	“The end goal of European integration, for Notre Europe, is the creation of a political community, beyond market and economic trading. What brings the Europeans together within the Union is therefore, beyond lifestyles, a set of founding political values. The which—freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights—are enshrined in the treaties and itemised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a corpus of human rights which are at the core of integration. These values are not merely declaratory: the European Court of Justice is their ultimate guarantor”.
	That last bit is the problem.

William Cash: In the light of that last point, does my hon. Friend recall that the European Court of Justice has effectively stated that the provisions in the treaty that introduced the Lisbon treaty, which were meant to exempt the charter of fundamental rights, apply in the United Kingdom and that therefore the objectives he has just described would promote the striking down of UK Acts of Parliament?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I absolutely agree. It is the guarantor bit that causes the real problem in this matter.
	Notre Europe also calls for
	“substantial improvement to the coordination of economic policies”
	as part of building a European “social market economy”. Notre Europe
	“insists on the pressing necessity for the Union to become a global and influential actor... It must, in due course have summoned up a defence policy and the joint forces to go with it.”
	The charter also states:
	“Though healthy emulation may be conceivable, nay desirable, competition between nations is the harbinger of all sorts of conflicts and the very negation of all concepts of political community, not to mention being a brake on the coherence and might of a large integrated economic block. Some types of fiscal and social competition are destructive and must be resisted.”
	In other words, the European Union should set tax rates and social and employment law.
	Notre Europe, which is funded from the Europe for Citizens budget line, also believes that
	“there are domains where Union action is of the essence and where it will have to be increased. The issue of mobility”—
	currently a pertinent subject in the UK—
	“comes in that scope: a European labour market is needed for those who go from one country to the next, including common rules and protections. Member States must further come to an agreement on a minimum package of social rights to be observed everywhere and at all times.”
	Notre Europe also
	“champions Jacques Delors’ groundbreaking vision of a Federation of Nation-States.”
	It is notable that that phrase was later propounded by the current Commission President, Mr Barroso, in his state of the Union address in 2012.

Bernard Jenkin: Does not that episode underline the point of our signing a letter to the Prime Minister at the weekend, because it is not the lack of a power of veto that seems to matter in this case, but the reluctance to exercise a veto even when we have one?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The latter part of my hon. Friend’s intervention is exactly right. We have a veto on the matter, so it is up to Parliament to choose whether it wants to exercise it. That is the point of this debate.
	Finally—this bit I find particularly galling—Notre Europe’s charter states:
	‘The 21st century EU must also have at its command a budget in keeping with its ambitions. It will not be possible… to settle for a ceiling at 1.27% of Member States’ gross national product without abandoning stated goals. It must establish new own resources levied through genuine European taxation, proof perfect of European solidarity beyond the States’ calculations in terms of “return” on their contribution, calculations the philosophical, political and economic basis of which Notre Europe disputes.’
	In other words, the funding that Notre Europe receives from that budget line goes to try to get a European tax to fund even more Europe.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, as Chairman of Ways and Means, will be pleased to know that we were fairly generous in 2013, because Notre Europe was awarded €435,500 from the Europe for Citizens budget line. It was awarded €500,000 in 2012, €550,000 in 2011 and €605,000 in 2010. That means that under the last Europe for Citizens programme that organisation was awarded a total of almost €2.1 million.
	It also turns out that Notre Europe has been awarded grants for particular projects under the last Europe for Citizens programme—the European Commission likes not only to fund an organisation, but to give it things to do. In 2009 it received €46,400 for a project called “Think Global—Act European”. In 2011 it received €102,500 for a project of the same name. A cursory examination of the European Union’s budgets online shows that that programme received about €2.24 million.
	The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), who has just left the Chamber, would have been pleased to hear my next point. Also benefiting handsomely under the previous Europe for Citizens programme is our old friend the European Movement. Hon. Members might have noticed that we all receive a regular e-mail commenting on British and European political matters from the UK chapter of the European Movement. It claims that it raises its own moneys and that its objective is to
	“contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe”,
	which is a fairly political objective.
	Seemingly, however, the European Movement does receive EU moneys. The grants that I am about to list were all given to help the running of European Movement International, which is based in Brussels, rather than for any one specific project. The European Movement received €432,500 in 2013, €430,000 in 2012, and €430,000 in 2010. A little more delving shows that in 2007 it was also awarded €56,360 for a project that is not identified on the relevant list of selected projects but it still got the
	money. The total receipts for this organisation under the previous programme, the latest version of which the Government want us to recommend to go through, were almost €1.78 million—the best part of £1.5 million.
	My final example of egregious spending under the Europe for Citizens programme is the money doled out to the Union of European Federalists. As its name suggests, this organisation is “dedicated to the promotion” of a “federal Europe”. Over the course of the previous programme, the UEF was awarded grants totalling €671,000 to support its existence—again, not to support projects that it runs. It received €121,000 in 2013, €110,000 in 2012, €110,000 in 2011, €110,000 in 2010, €110,000 in 2009, and €110,000 in 2008. It was also awarded grants for particular projects. In 2010—this money was given to the Belgian member organisation of the UEF, the Union of European Federalists Belgium, which is based somewhere in the same location—it was awarded €15,214 for a project called “European issues and citizenship”. We can see a theme running through many of the sums that are given. In 2007, it too received money—€27,670—for an unspecified project. The UEF got so much money during the course of the previous programme that it raised €714,000.

William Cash: This money is paid by way of grant, out of taxpayers’ money, direct to these organisations. Does my hon. Friend accept that these organisations, including many Eurosceptic organisations, can receive money only out of donations after the tax has been paid on them? The taxpayer is funding all this.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Absolutely. In fact, the United Kingdom taxpayer is funding all this. That is why I am worried about allowing this measure to progress much further without having the opportunity to amend it to strike out the Europe for Citizens programme completely. As I said, we have the ability, as a Parliament, to do exactly that.
	I have written to the Minister regarding my concerns about these moneys being spent in this fashion. At the end of last week I received a reply that is a close-to-desperate attempt to justify such spending, in which he said:
	“In negotiating the regulation my officials ensured that the overall bill was cut from €229m in the Commission’s proposal to €185m, as part of the PM’s historic cut to the European budget.”
	I am very pleased about that. He continued:
	“The programme would cost the UK around €2-3m annually, and we will of course get some of that back in funding to projects in the UK. A recent example is a project called ‘History Speaks’ at the Holocaust Centre in Newark.”
	I thought I would have a look at that project because it sounds like a really worthy project that I would want money to be spent on, and it absolutely is—it is fantastic. However, since the financial crash the Holocaust Centre in Newark, like every other organisation that does good work, has struggled financially. In 2007, this memorial and educational trust, founded 14 years ago by non-Jewish brothers Stephen and James Smith, needed to slash its annual budget from £800,000 to £500,000, and its activities such as professional training to spread the word about what the holocaust meant had to be axed so that it could focus its resources on educating the young. The centre deals with over 22,000 primary and secondary school pupils who visit it each year.
	If we were really serious about this, we could ask the European Commission to rebalance the Europe for Citizens programme in negotiations. I understand that it is a complex package; indeed, I have been in trialogues between the Commission, the Parliament and the Council where such a complex package has been rebalanced before. Then we could talk about funding worthwhile commemorative projects such as the Holocaust Centre in Newark above and beyond anything we give to political organisations that should be raising their own money and not suckling on the teat of the taxpayer. Surely our Government are also capable of funding worthy remembrance and town-twinning projects. As the whole House will know, town-twinning projects do not just involve European Union countries; UK towns and cities are twinned with towns and cities across the world. EU funding is not needed for this, and so we do not need the associated EU federalist propaganda that goes with it, which, as I have proved, is a significant part of the programme.
	The UK wields a veto over this draft regulation. I realise that the Government are planning to submit their support for the proposal to the approval of the House of Commons under the terms of the European Union Act 2011; the Minister has confirmed as much. However, I would be delighted if they went back to the Council and insisted on a radical rethink of the matter so that British taxpayers do not end up paying for schemes aimed at furthering a political project with which most of them disagree.
	It was fairly obvious that the shadow Minister did not know what was included within these programmes. Nevertheless, as the Labour leadership is trying to engage more sensibly with the British people on European matters and has given a commitment to European Union budgetary restraint, I would like Labour Members to see this as a matter where they could help the Government to take the right course and have UK taxpayers’ money spent in a better way.
	The Minister will be relieved to know that I do not intend to push for a vote on Second Reading, although others might do so. However, I will seek at a later stage to remove clause 1(2)(b), which approves the Europe for Citizens programme for the period 2014 to 2020. The Government’s programme motion provides that the Bill’s next stage will be taken in Committee of the whole House, and I look forward to that debate.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) because he has gone through so much of the rather painful detail of what this money goes towards. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on putting his case as he did. I could not quite decide whether he was modelling himself on Horatius at the bridge or the boy who stood on the burning deck, because I noticed that he was not supported not only by his Secretary of State but by any Secretary of State. He had the occasional support of the Lord Privy Seal, and I am glad that he now has the support of the Minister for Europe, but I think he should feel rather let down by Ministers who have not turned out in greater numbers to rally to this particularly disagreeable cause.
	I will mention in passing the first part of the Bill, on archives and the value—or the vanity—of archives. When I was doing my A-levels, I was told that if ever we ran out of something to say when discussing 16th-century history, we should always refer to a report sent by the Venetian ambassador. That is because the archives in Venice were so great—so large and comprehensive—that nobody ever went through them all, and therefore if we attributed a view to the Venetian ambassador nobody could tell us that we were wrong. In the same way, if we were to visit the Escorial we would find that some of the documents of Philip II of Spain still have on them the sand used to blot the ink, because nobody has looked at them in the many hundreds of years that have passed. I have a feeling that the institute in Florence—this wonderful, glorious, illustrious European institute that is going to educate us so much about the virtues and kindness of the European Union—will find that the sand remains on these documents until scholars yet unborn finally get round to sweeping it off.
	I want to deal most particularly with the idea of “Europe for Citizens”. Let me start by saying that I object to the idea that I am a citizen of Europe in the first place. I do not believe that it is, was or ever could be legitimate to foist a citizenship on people who have not asked for it or were not born into it. To say in about 1990, as the Maastricht treaty came through, that those of us who were proud to be subjects of Her Majesty were suddenly also citizens of some foreign multinational organisation seems to me an affront. Therefore, I deny— I repudiate—my citizenship of this body.

Chris Bryant: What about the Catholic Church?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, “What about the Catholic Church?”

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think we are going to go down that route. We are going to stick with what is before us.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will just say, briefly, that a previous Leader of the House stood godparent for me when I was baptised into the Catholic Church, so I think I consented through him.
	I will turn to the text of the document, because we need to look at the detail of what the Government are signing us up to. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has mentioned paragraph 3 of the “Europe for Citizens” document, but I should like to construe it in some detail. It says:
	“While there is objectively an added value in being a Union citizen with established rights, the Union does not always highlight in an effective way the link between the solution to a broad range of economic and social problems and the Union’s policies.”
	But that is not true. The very fourth word of that paragraph is a falsehood. Objectively, there is no added value in being a European citizen—that is a subjective view of being a European citizen. The document is a dishonest document and we are only on the third paragraph.
	The paragraph continues:
	“Hence, the impressive achievements in terms of peace and stability in Europe”.
	It occurs to me that the achievements in terms of peace may have had something to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the willingness of the United States of America to spend billions of dollars on putting a defensive shield around western Europe to protect us from the USSR, the evil empire. This is a document of ipsedixitrists: people who believe that, because they say it themselves, it must be true, but, by and large, it is not true.
	The paragraph goes on to tell the great joke—I doubt you ever thought, Mr Deputy Speaker, there would be such humour in a European Union document—about long-term stable growth. Tell that to the Greeks, the Italians, the Cypriots, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Irish. Are there any other offers from hon. Members? [Hon. Members: “The French!”] The French and Monsieur Hollande would like to hear about the stable growth provided by their kind brethren in the European Union.
	The paragraph goes on to tell us about the “promotion of fundamental rights”. How splendid that is. I am all in favour of fundamental rights—we have had them in this country for quite a long time—but what is the one fundamental right that the European Union disapproves of? Why, it is democracy of course. They do not like that a bit, because we might vote against them. I am sorry to say that even our own Foreign Secretary does not much like democracy any more, because he thinks this Parliament may have the discourtesy to vote against rules and regulations and instructions sent down from on high by the European Union.
	The paragraph notes that the situation has, sadly,
	“not always led to a strong feeling among citizens of belonging to the Union.”
	My infant children blow raspberries sometimes. In this House of Commons it may not be appropriate to blow a raspberry literally, but let me metaphorically blow a raspberry at the idea of having a strong feeling about belonging to the Union.
	I will come back to the next page later, because it ties in with a comment made by the Prime Minister that, importantly, needs to be examined. The sixth paragraph looks at the
	“interim evaluation report of the Europe for Citizens programme”,
	which says that the last programme was a great success and worked very well. The European Commission has carried out a report to say that what it has just done was enormously successful. That strikes me as, to coin a phrase, marking one’s own homework.
	I will move on, if I may, to paragraph 7. Where are they going to do all this wonderful stuff? They are going to do it
	“in the areas of education, vocational training and youth, sport, culture and the audiovisual sector, fundamental rights and freedoms, social inclusion, gender equality, combating discrimination, research and innovation, information society, enlargement and the external action of the Union.”
	Not all of those are, in fact, competencies of the European Union, so in this article 352 extension to the powers of the EU we see an attempt to push those powers even further by spending money in areas that are not actually competencies of the EU. The Government are agreeing—in breach of the coalition agreement—to an extension of the power and competence of the European Union.
	I quite like paragraph 8, because it wants to promote reflection on defining moments in European history. If we do have to have this Bill, I hope it will get through
	by 2015, because there are four defining moments in European history that I am looking forward to celebrating in 2015. It will, of course, be the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta; the 750th anniversary of the meeting of the House of Commons with Members from boroughs; the 600th anniversary of Agincourt; and the 200th anniversary of Waterloo. We can have a jolly time in 2015 celebrating the defining moments in European history, which I am glad to say mainly involve the success of the English and, more latterly, the British.

Richard Drax: Given that my hon. Friend is giving such an excellent speech and talking about anniversaries, I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out that it is his wedding anniversary today and that his other half is not too far away.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is spot on. He has discovered the secret of the Rees-Mogg household: we celebrate our anniversary by speaking about the European Union. I have a feeling that that is probably true of Members on both sides of the House. Could there be a nicer way to spend one’s seventh anniversary?
	Reflecting on the history of Europe is important, because we as Britons can take some pride in the fact that we have on four occasions—arguably five—destroyed an attempt to have a single European superstate: Louis XIV was unquestionably one, followed by Bonaparte, the Kaiser and Hitler. It may be that the fifth attempt to create—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do like the hon. Gentleman’s history lessons, but I am bothered because this is the Second Reading debate on a Bill that is quite tight and narrow. As much as the hon. Gentleman’s history may add up, I know that he wants to actually concentrate on the Bill before us.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am actually referring to the eighth paragraph of the document we are being asked to approve, which wishes us to define defining moments of history.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think I might be able to help. As much as I welcome the history lesson, it is the length of the history lesson that I do not quite need. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes to shorten it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was taking the Secretary of State for Education too literally with regard to the thought that a chronological history should be taught in all aspects of life.
	We should be proud of our influence on European history. The document goes on to say that it wants to remember the existence of European identity. I am not too sure what European identity it is talking about. I think we have an identity as people belonging to the individual nations that make up the European Union, not as people belonging to a supranational state.
	We must not forget that this is a European document and no European document would be complete without at least one sentence—probably many more—of complete gobbledegook, so I shall quote one. It may be that a cleverer hon. Member present will be able to translate it. It states:
	“A horizontal dimension of the Programme should ensure the valorisation and transferability of results for enhanced impact and long-term sustainability.”
	Ain’t that just fine and dandy?
	I want to—[Interruption.] I am scattering my papers—this is how European documents should be treated: tossed in pieces around and about—but I want to address a point that has already been raised. The nub of this is that 60% of the money spent will be spent on giving preference to initiatives and projects with a link to the political agenda of the European Union. This is all about promoting what it thinks of as being the advantage of the EU. It is about advancing the superstate and using British taxpayers’ money to do so.

Julian Lewis: To give my hon. Friend a moment to relocate his script, may I ask him whether we are perhaps in danger of being unfair to the Government? Could not the reason why our Government are so keen to suggest that we sign up to this nonsense, garbage and propaganda be that they want to impress on the House and the British people how important it is to have an in/out referendum on our membership of the European Union?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a wonderfully ingenious point. I am not sure that a coalition Government could be quite that clever, though that may be uncharitable.
	I want to move on to the real problem about the programme. In not only mine but a succession of speeches this afternoon and early evening, we have established that it is about propaganda for the European Union, but why have Her Majesty’s Government brought it before the House in a Bill when they have a veto? That question takes us to the heart of the matter—it is about trust. We are told by the Government very regularly, or at least by the Conservative part of the Government, that they are Eurosceptics and do not want to see further integration, but believe we should restore powers to the United Kingdom. Then, when they have the chance to veto something, what do they do? They bring it forward with further expenditure and adopt, or wish to adopt, a European regulation, irrespective of their previous propaganda. It seems to me that people will notice the disjunction between what is said and what is done.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, I want to quote the Prime Minister, who said about a year ago:
	“Let me make a further heretical proposition. The European Treaty commits the Member States to ‘lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’. This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European Court of Justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation. We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain—and perhaps for others—it is not the objective.”
	However, paragraph 4 of the document we are asked to approve this afternoon mentions bringing
	“Europe closer to its citizens and to enable them to participate fully in the construction of an ever closer Union”.
	We are therefore being asked to vote on the Second Reading of a Bill that directly contradicts a promise given to the British people by the Prime Minister a year ago.
	What will people in the country say when they read in the newspapers that politicians do not stick to their promises, and when they are told by UKIP that the Tories may say they are Eurosceptic, but they are in fact little more than sheep in sheep’s clothing? They will look at us and think that we are playing ducks and drakes with them. We ought to be honest with the British people. We should make sure that our promises, words and actions go together.
	When we have the power of veto, the right to stop this further piece of European integration, we should without question exercise it. The Government deserve praise for the fact that under the 2011 Act we at least have a vote, but they should never have allowed the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box with this odious piece of further pro-European integration. It is against what the Conservative party stands for, and as that party forms the majority of the coalition, it ought to be against Government policy.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful to have the opportunity, with the leave of the House, to respond to the debate, which has been wrapped up by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). There was an element of disloyalty from my acting Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who said to me during the debate, “You’d better hope that you don’t follow him.” I think that that was a reference to the rhetorical qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, who certainly did not disappoint. It is my sad lot to have to follow his excellent and perspicacious speech.
	My hon. Friend pointed out that I have been without friends on the Front Bench for most of the debate. It is true that we invited Justice Ministers to wind up the debate, because archives are obviously an important element of their portfolio, but for some reason we found that none was available. It is therefore down to me, with the leave of the House, to wind up the debate.
	It is very rare for a Minister to open and close a Second Reading debate—[Interruption.] Apart from two weeks ago, it is a very rare event. [Interruption.] It happens all the time, according to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Here I am, however, closing a debate that I opened. Let me begin by asking the hon. Gentleman not to intervene from a sedentary position. Frankly, if he has something to say, he should come to the Dispatch Box and say it. [Interruption.] Heis trying it again, but let me move on.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on her response to my opening remarks. She raised several points that I want to address. In relation to archives, she asked whether European institutions can deposit their documents written on vellum. That is not part of the regulations that we are debating and approving. It is of course welcome that she takes a traditionalist view of how documents should be written and archived, but it is rather sad that when any spending opportunity presents itself, she seizes the moment.
	It is true that the European Central Bank will not deposit its documents in the archive. Its situation is similar to that of the Bank of England, which does not
	deposit its archives at the National Archives. To be frank, the hon. Lady’s point was more to do with the general issue of whether the European Central Bank is transparent enough, which is nothing to do with today’s debate.
	The hon. Lady asked how much money will be spent in the UK. Many hon. Members debated the issue of how much is likely to be spent. Normally, we would expect to see a return on our investment of about 5% to 10%. Any money to support commemorations for world war one, for example, would not be part of the Government’s main programme of commemoration, but to support programmes involving different countries across Europe.
	The hon. Lady said that I am not doing well enough on stopping the export of objects that have been legitimately purchased. I remind her that our export ban system has been in place for 60 years. The delay to the Bill was simply to do with finding parliamentary time.
	We heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and, of course, for North East Somerset.
	I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a fantastic contribution. It was generous to me, and it showed off his remarkable knowledge of the subject from his 30 years of looking at European issues.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber described the Bill as “gentle”, “timorous” and “meek, mild and inoffensive”. I think he was making a plea to hon. Members not to be cruel to the Bill, but to shepherd it through with the utmost care and attention. He mentioned that the funds in one of the regulations supported the European Movement, of which he is the UK president and which, of course, was started by Sir Winston Churchill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made a very good point when he reminded us that this debate was happening because of the Conservative party and the Bill we passed, in the teeth of opposition from Labour, to give the House the opportunity to scrutinise European legislation. It is shocking, when we see the House filled up with people ready to scrutinise European legislation, that Labour still refuses to give the British people a say on their membership of Europe. It is only by voting Conservative that the British people will get a say, in a referendum, on whether we should remain a member of the EU.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry welcomed the scrutiny, but asked for a rebalancing of the project. He is the chairman of the Royal and Derngate theatre, and it is welcome to see him in that position. We will always find examples, as he did, of funded projects with which we disagree, but I know, as someone responsible for funding the Arts Council—I do not want to start another debate—and looking at the distribution of lottery funds, that we will always find funded projects with which we disagree and many projects we think should be funded that are not. That is in the nature of it. The process for getting funding will involve an open application system, and we should encourage people to make applications, should the House support the regulation, as there is no reason, in principle, why they should not receive funding.
	This has been a lively, enjoyable and informative debate. It remains for me to conclude on the most important issue, which is of course the wedding anniversary of the hon. Member for North East Somerset. It falls on St Canute’s day. It is said in Scandinavia that good St Thomas brought Christmas and the evil Canute took it away. The death of Canute started a minor European civil war, and it is important to remember that this fund will commemorate some horrific events in Europe that are worth commemorating—the totalitarian nature of Stalinism and Nazism and the holocaust, as well as the carnage of the great war.
	But I am running out of things to say. I will not refer to the Venetian ambassador. I simply commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 366, Noes 30.

Question accordingly agreed to.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(3) Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming committee

(5) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(6) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

Backbench Business

Welfare Reforms and Poverty

Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that a commission of inquiry should be established to investigate the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on the incidence of poverty.
	I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House the opportunity to debate this issue, which has been seriously neglected over the past three years. I am pleased to move the motion, which appears in my name and the names of Members from other parties.
	It is clear that something terrible is happening across the face of Britain. We are seeing the return of absolute poverty, which has not existed in this country since the Victorian age, more than a century ago. Absolute poverty is when people do not have the money to pay for even their most basic needs. The evidence of that is all around us. There are at least 345 food banks and, according to the Trussell Trust, emergency food aid was given to 350,000 households for at least three days in the last year. The Red Cross is setting up centres to help the destitute, just as it does in developing countries. A study that was published two months ago shows that even in prosperous areas of the country, such as London, more than a quarter of the population is living in poverty. This point is really scary: according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, for the first time, the number of people in working families who are living in poverty, at 6.7 million, is greater than the number of people in workless and retired families who are living in poverty, at 6.3 million.
	The Department for Work and Pensions published new data two months ago—it was pretty reluctant to do this, and one can see why—showing that the use of sanctions, which means depriving people of all their benefits for several weeks at a time, had increased by 126% since 2010 and, most strikingly of all, that 120 disabled people who had been receiving jobseeker’s allowance had been given a three-year fixed duration sanction in the previous year. Figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government—these are the last that I will quote, although there are many more that I could quote—show that there are now more than 2,000 families who have been placed in emergency bed-and-breakfast accommodation after losing their homes. The 5% rise in the overall homelessness figures last year included nearly 9,000 families with children, which is the equivalent of one family losing their home every 15 minutes.
	What impact have the so-called welfare reforms, which would more accurately be described as social security knock-backs, had on the families who have been affected? The best evidence comes from the Northern Housing Consortium, which carried out a survey three months ago of a representative sample of people living in social housing. It found that a third of families spent less than £20 a week on food and that the average spend on food per person per day was precisely £2.10. That is a third less than those families were able to afford three months
	before that. The proportion of households that had to make debt repayments of more than £40 a week had doubled and the average level of debt was £2,250. That might not sound a lot to us, but to people with that standard of living, it is an enormous and daunting sum. A third of families had council tax debt, and households were having to spend 16% more on gas and electricity. Those are deplorable figures of profound impoverishment in an economy that is still the sixth largest in the world.

Andy Sawford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. Does he also recognise the impact of 2.7 million people losing out through the Government’s changes to council tax benefit, many of them disabled people, veterans and some of the most vulnerable in our communities?

Michael Meacher: I have already made slight reference to that, but my hon. Friend is entirely right. The change is quite small, but its impact can push very poor families into deep poverty.
	What are the causes of the emergence of absolute poverty? The biggest cause is the huge rise in sanctioning: depriving someone of all their benefit entitlement for a month in the first instance, for three months in the second instance and, on a third infringement, for three years!

David Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: I will not give way to too many Members, for the simple reason that many want to speak, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

David Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not agree that it is vital that those who are not looking for work are made to realise that there will be consequences to those actions, particularly at a time when 1 million people have been able to come into this country from eastern Europe and find work here?

Michael Meacher: Those who come to this country are more likely to be employed and take out less in benefits than many of the indigenous population. The real point is that these people want work—of course the hon. Gentleman is right that people should get work if they can, but there are 2.5 million people who have been unemployed for the best part of two years, and there are 562,000 vacancies—I checked that figure today—so four out of five of those who are unemployed simply cannot get a job whatever they do.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) does not seem to realise that many of the people who claim benefits, including jobseeker’s allowance, are people who work. I have a constituent on a very low income. He delivers newspapers to my constituency office. He has dyslexia, but he works because he wants the pride of keeping himself. He still needs to claim JSA, but he lost his allowance because his dyslexia meant that in one fortnightly period he applied for nine jobs, not 10. Can that possibly be right, when this man is already working and trying to pay his way?

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I have already made the point that the greatest number of people in poverty are actually in working families. That is a real indictment of economic and social policy.
	The sanctions are very harsh. I accept that there must be some sanctions, but the scale is out of all proportion and remarkably harsh. They are often applied for trivial reasons, such as turning up five minutes late for a job interview or a Work programme. Of course, people should not turn up five minutes late, but to deny them benefits for a whole month for that reason is totally disproportionate. There are other examples from my own experience in my surgery or from Citizens Advice interviews. I will quote, very quickly, just a few of them:
	“The jobcentre didn’t record that I had informed them that I was in hospital when I was due to attend an appointment and I was sanctioned.”
	“I went to a job interview instead of signing on at the jobcentre because the appointments clashed.”
	Presumably, that was the right thing to do, but he was still sanctioned.
	“I had to look after my mum who was severely disabled and very ill, but I was still sanctioned.”
	“I didn’t know about the interview because they sent the letter to my previous address. I’d told them my new address but I was still sanctioned.”
	“I was refused a job because I was in a women’s refuge, fleeing domestic violence and in the process of relocating, but I was still sanctioned.”
	This is a classic:
	“I didn’t do enough to find work in between finding work and starting the job.”
	The latest DWP figures are from two months ago—it would be handy if we had more up-to-date figures—and show no less than 580,000 persons sanctioned in the eight months to June last year. If the same rate has continued since then—it has probably increased—that means that more than 1 million have been sanctioned in the past 15 months and deprived of all benefit and all income. Given that the penalties are out of all proportion to the triviality of many of the infringements, and given that, as I have said, four out of five people cannot get a job whatever they do, the use of sanctioning on this scale, with the result of utter destitution, is—one struggles for words—brutalising and profoundly unjust.
	There are other reasons for this deeply worrying rise in absolute poverty. One is the delays in benefit payments, which have increased substantially—the delays, not the benefit payments, unfortunately. Another reason is the impossibility for many poor and vulnerable people to comply with the new rules, even though they want to, that are being imposed. I will quote just one case from my surgery a few weeks ago. He is a disabled man who had his benefits reduced due to the one-year employment and support allowance rule, so his income is now £71 a week. He has been left in a three-bedroom house because his mother and other people looking after him have died and so has to pay £23 in bedroom tax, plus £6 a week—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) was making—in council tax due to the new council tax rules, leaving him with £42 a week. He asked to downsize to a smaller property, which is what the Government would expect him to do, but the local housing association, ironically called First Choice Homes, demanded that he pay two weeks’ full
	rent upfront, £197, before getting any housing benefit. He cannot do that, of course, and he is stuck in an impossible situation.
	Another reason for the rise in absolute poverty is the impact of the bedroom tax, which applies to two thirds of a million households. I think everyone, probably even Government Members, will admit that it is Dickensian in its sheer social divisiveness. The housing benefit cap has now been imposed on a further 33,000 households. Both of those measures have forced tens of thousands of people out of their homes—we need to take into consideration what that means—even though two thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax are disabled. It is reckoned that more than 90% do not have smaller social housing to move into.
	Another not insignificant cause of destitution—I will be very brief on this—is mistakes made by the authorities themselves. Last week, one of my constituents who had been sanctioned for a month was suddenly told that his sanction had been extended to a year. It was only intervention with the local DWP office that uncovered that it was actually their mistake. What happens for others who do not have the advantage of such an intervention? It now seems that up to 40,000 working-age tenants in social housing have been improperly subjected to the bedroom tax because of DWP error.
	I will cite just one more reason for the unnecessary and cruel imposition of poverty, and I say that advisedly: the way in which tens of thousands of severely disabled persons have been judged by Atos, the French IT company, as fit for work—and therefore forced on to JSA at just £71 a week—when they are patently unfit for work. Very often, their GP has not been consulted to inquire whether there are other factors that need to be taken into account. The Chancellor’s policy of keeping 2.5 million people unemployed makes it impossible for them to find work, even if there were employers who would be willing to take them, and the 40% success rate of appeals shows how unfair the whole process is.
	I conclude by asking just one simple question: is all this brutality towards the poor really necessary? Is there any justification in intensifying the misery, as the Chancellor clearly intends, by winding up the social fund and, particularly, by imposing another £25 billion of cuts in the next Parliament, half of that from working-age benefits? The whole objective of the massive cuts programme—to reduce the deficit—is one that I think we would all support. There is no disagreement about that across the House, yet after £80 billion of public spending cuts, with about £23 billion of cuts in this Parliament so far, the deficit has been reduced only at a glacial pace, from £118 billion in 2011 to £115 billion in 2012 and £111 billion in 2013. Frankly, the Chancellor is like one of those first world war generals who urged his men forward, over the top, in order to recover 300 yards of bombed-out ground, but lost 20,000 men in the process. How can it be justified to carry on imposing abject and unnecessary destitution on such a huge scale when the benefits in terms of deficit reduction are so small as to be almost derisory?

Ronnie Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government might save a lot more if they showed the same energy and enthusiasm for getting those who evade their taxes and run to tax havens as they do for going after the poor, the sick and people on the dole?

Michael Meacher: I will come to that in just a moment.
	People say that to carry on doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result, is the first sign of insanity. The Chancellor is not insane, of course, but he is deeply punitive and sectarian. Frankly, I want to help him. There is another way.

Stephen Mosley: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest. What does he think about the assertion by those on his own Front Bench that they would be tougher on welfare than the Tories?

Michael Meacher: The thrust of what those on our Front Bench have said, as the shadow Chancellor has made clear on many occasions, is that we need public investment. We need to get jobs and growth. That is the alternative way: public investment in jobs, industry, infrastructure and exports to grow the real economy, not the financial froth, because that would cut the deficit far faster—that is the key point—than the Chancellor’s beloved austerity.
	If the Chancellor is obsessed with fiscal consolidation, as I think he is, how about the ultra-rich—Britain’s 1,000 richest citizens—contributing just a bit? Their current remuneration—I am talking about a fraction of the top 1%—is £86,000 a week, which is 185 times the average wage. They received a windfall of more than £2,000 a week from the 5% cut in the higher rate of income tax, and their wealth was recently estimated by The Sunday Times—not The Guardian, but The Sunday Times—at nearly half a trillion pounds. Let us remember that we are talking about 1,000 people. Their asset gains since the 2009 crash have been calculated by the same source at about £190 billion.
	My question, therefore, is: does the Chancellor believe that these persons, loaded with the riches of Midas, might perhaps be prevailed upon to contribute a minute fraction of their wealth in an acute national emergency, when one sixth of the work force earns less than the living wage and when 1 million people who cannot get a job are being deprived of all income by sanctioning and thereby being left utterly destitute? This is just a thought: charging the ultra-rich’s asset gains since 2009 to capital gains tax would raise more than the £25 billion that the Chancellor purports to need. I submit that it would introduce some semblance of democracy and social justice in this country if the Chancellor paid attention to this debate and thought deeply about what he is doing to our country and its people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There will be a 10-minute time limit in this debate.

David Davies: Members of the shadow Cabinet might need a boxing referee to sort out their disputes at the moment, as we read today in the Daily Mail, but I can assure hon. Members that I believe that the Conservative party is absolutely united in supporting the coalition Government and coalition Ministers in what they are trying to achieve. We do so against the backdrop of one of the most disastrous economic situations that this country has faced outside of a war.
	It is worth reminding ourselves just what we were looking at in 2010. We took office with a deficit of £160 billion and a debt that was rising rapidly to £1 trillion. That was after years of overspending in good times, as well as in bad, by Labour, a cheap money supply and lax banking regulation under the former Government. We had disastrous economic decisions, such as that to sell gold at a fraction of its real rate. Worst of all and most seriously—this is what we are dealing with today—we had a welfare system that allowed people to get into a trap of welfare dependency, leaving them on the dole for many years, but at the same time filling the consequent gap in employment by allowing mass and uncontrolled immigration into this country, which completely undercut British workers.
	That was the disastrous legacy that this coalition Government faced in 2010. I am proud of the fact that, instead of shirking their responsibilities, Ministers in this coalition Government took difficult economic decisions. Of course we had to make cuts and reduce public spending. It would have been grossly irresponsible not to do so, and in the longer term it would have led to far greater poverty than we face now. The reality is that we are a nation in debt. We are having to borrow about £10 billion every month. We are also having to roll over existing debts that previous Governments left us. If for any reason the international money lending organisations that give us that £10 billion a month ever decided that we were not in a position to pay either the interest or the original sum, they would simply stop lending to us, and there would be no European bank or International Monetary Fund waiting to bail us out with the sums we would need.
	We would face an economic catastrophe on a far greater scale than the one we face now, and it would lead to real poverty. Indeed, it could lead to even third-world levels of poverty, because we would simply run out of cash. That is the catastrophe that keeps me awake at night—far more so than the bogus claims about global warming, when we have seen no rise in temperature for 16 years, or than terrorism, which is a much more serious matter but which the security services have thus far been able to contain.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge the truth that the amount spent on welfare by the last Labour Government decreased over time because we were effective in creating more jobs and getting people off welfare and into work? The national debt was some £800 billion when his party came to power, but is it not now well over £1 trillion and rising?

David Davies: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his last point. He makes an important point, but I would like to find out where it was going. Is he suggesting that we are not doing enough to pay down the national debt? Is he suggesting that we should cut further and faster? If so, and if we had the support of other Opposition Members, that is exactly what the Government could do and, indeed, possibly should do. I look forward to seeing that support for getting the deficit down.

Hugh Bayley: The point I am making is simply that the Labour Government reduced the amount that taxpayers had to spend on welfare because we were effective at
	investing in the economy, creating jobs and thereby getting people off welfare and into work.

David Davies: I do not accept that point, but I do accept that when the last Labour Government came into office in 1997, they spent the first couple of years paying down the national debt, which is exactly what they should have done.

Hugh Bayley: It was the first 10 years.

David Davies: No, from 2001 onwards they started overspending by an average of about £30 billion. That is an absolute fact; I have checked the figures on the national debt very carefully. From 2001 onwards, they started overspending by an average of about £30 billion a year. That is a fact. I can tell hon. Members that I have checked the figures on the national debt very carefully. As I say, from about 2001 onwards, the Labour Government decided to start overspending by approximately £30 billion a year, and they were overspending long before the financial crash happened in 2008—a crash that they, incidentally, had helped to cause.
	Ministers in the coalition Government are absolute right to make cuts, and if Labour Members feel that the deficit is still too high and that further cuts should be made, I am sure we would all welcome their support. The Government are right to do this for another reason: the welfare system, which we are reforming, traps people in worklessness. Many members of my family— through marriage—are from eastern Europe, and some of them came to this country barely able to speak English and had no qualifications that would be recognised here. They were, however, able to get into work. They started in low-paid jobs and worked their way up.
	I spent many years in low-paid jobs, and I am not talking about holiday jobs or a gap year, as I never even went to university. I happened to believe that, rather than wait around for whatever job people think they deserve, they should take any job available to them and use work to get better work. That is the way forward, and that is what the Government are trying to encourage through the use of sanctions and, frankly, through making it difficult for people to sit around watching the television all day. I am not suggesting that that applies to everyone who is out of work or even a majority of them, but it certainly applies to a percentage of people who are out of work. It is high time that it was tackled and stopped. I am glad that some people have the courage to do that.
	We hear nothing from Labour Members except a mass of contradictions. They say that they want to be tough on welfare—tougher than the Tories, as the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary said in October 2013—and then to a different audience they complain about every single cut to the welfare budget. They complain that the Government are making cuts and then they complain, as the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) did, that the deficit is too high. It is ludicrous. They say that they are against the bedroom tax, but they brought the bedroom tax in, albeit in the private sector. What they say is a mass of contractions, so I cannot understand how anyone could feel that Labour Members were fit to be put in charge of welfare benefits or indeed the economy ever again.

Stephen Mosley: Had my hon. Friend attended Work and Pensions questions this morning, he would have heard Labour Members going on about the work capability assessment. Which Government introduced it? It was, of course, the previous Labour Government.

David Davies: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I believe we would all like to see some consistency from the Opposition—both on the economy and on what they are really planning to do to benefits. In the meantime, let me commend both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front-Bench teams, who have been prepared to put aside their personal poll ratings—frankly, these are unpopular decisions—and do what is right for this country rather than what is right for winning elections: namely, getting the deficit down and solving the long-term problem of worklessness. That will do far more to tackle poverty than anything we hear from Labour Members tonight.

David Winnick: Ministers—and certainly some Tory Back Benchers, as we have just heard—are in a state of denial about the increasing poverty in this country resulting from Government policies. They want us to believe—the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) is as good an example as any—that we are dealing with the work-shy and scroungers, with people who have no justification for receiving benefits in the first place. It is to a large extent a repeat of what I witnessed during the Thatcher years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), whom I congratulate on initiating this motion, will recall how we repeatedly used to point out what was happening in the country at large under Thatcher—increasing poverty and deprivation. Ministers and Tory Back Benchers back in the 1980s simply denied it: poverty did not exist; it was a figment of our imaginations. It was not then and it is not now.
	The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that 60% of the current benefit cuts fall on those who are in work. I totally reject, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, that those who are not in employment are scroungers or not justified in receiving social security benefits. The severely disabled are among those being hit by the cuts.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that child poverty will rise during this Parliament from 2.5 million to 3.2 million—an interesting figure, and I would argue that this debate is justified by that alone, and it explains why my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and I urge taking action. The figures I have quoted mean, according to the IFS, that almost 24% of children in the UK are likely to live in poverty by 2015 next year. What sort of country are we—supposedly one of the most advanced industrialised countries in the world, yet 24% of our children will be living in poverty by next year? This compares with just over 19% in 2011—and that figure was far too high. The IFS goes further, projecting that, unless there are changes, current policies will impoverish a further 700,000 children between 2015 and 2020. That means some 4 million children growing up in poverty in the UK.
	I had thought that Parliament in previous times, such as from 1945—I cannot claim to have been here at the time—was determined that poverty should largely be
	abolished, that full employment should occur and that no one should ever be in need again to the extent that people were before the second world war, yet we seem to be returning to that situation, which we hoped would be abolished for ever.
	If we look at the policies being pursued—only 1% uprating of so many benefits, including child benefit; the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index as a basis for calculating benefits; the reductions in working tax credits and the rest—they all add up to explain why we need this debate on poverty. All this, of course, is without what the Chancellor has threatened—a further £12 billion-worth of benefit cuts that he would like to see introduced after 2015.
	Is it surprising that so many people in need are turning to food banks, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned? During Education questions in September last year, the Education Secretary said that when people used such facilities as food banks, it was
	“often the result of decisions that they have taken which mean they are not best able to manage their finances.” —[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 681.]
	That was his explanation—a leading member of the Cabinet—for food banks. The Trussell Trust described those comments as “not just insensitive”, as they obviously were to say the least, but “completely inappropriate”.
	As anyone would know, people do not just go to a food bank for fun to ask for this, that or the other. It has to be authorised; people need vouchers and authorisation before food can be given. Does anyone in this House believe that people go along to food banks for the fun of it and to get a bit of free food? They go because they have no alternative. They have such limited incomes for bringing up their children, and I would have thought that many of them would feel humiliated by having to attend food banks. I would feel humiliated, and I am not alone. I would imagine that virtually every Member would feel humiliated if, as a result of limited income, poverty and so forth, they had to go to a food bank. How easy is it to justify that to the children? “Why are you going to a food bank, dad? Why do we not go to Tesco’s like everyone else?” Many children would ask such questions. We know why people go to food banks.
	What about the figures? In 2009-10, about 41,000 people used food banks. By 2011-12, it had gone up to 128,000. As I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned, the latest figures from the Trussell Trust suggest that some 350,000 people are using them. Given that—fortunately—other organisations provide such facilities, the total number is about half a million. Half a million people in this country are using food banks! Are we proud of that? Do we feel that the House of Commons is doing its duty, and carrying out its obligation to deal with poverty and deprivation? Let me say it again: at the beginning of this year, 2014, half a million people are resorting to food banks because they have no alternative.
	Other problems are being caused by cuts. For example, as a result of the impact of the cuts on local authorities, many home care visits are limited to 15 minutes. Those visits would not have been authorised in the first place unless they were necessary. Most of them involve disabled people and, in many cases, elderly people—in my age group or older—who cannot look after themselves. The number of 15-minute visits has increased by 15% over the last few years, and 60% of local authorities commission
	such visits. Why is that? In the main, it is not because any of them—including Conservative councils—are insensitive, but because, given the impact of the cuts, they see no alternative.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the impact of the social care cuts. Is he aware that the 10% of local authorities that are the most deprived in the country face cuts six times higher than those faced by the 10% that are the most affluent?

David Winnick: That too is an important point, which I hope the Minister will bear in mind when he winds up the debate.
	For those who have limited means, for those who cannot find work and for the disabled, the last few years—especially the last three—have become a desperate struggle for survival. I repeat what I said earlier. We should be ashamed, deeply ashamed, that so many of our fellow citizens—and let us not forget for one moment that they are our fellow citizens—are having to live in such circumstances. I only hope that there will be a change of Government, and that the new Government will do what I have every confidence that they will do. I hope that they will develop policies that will make life easier for those in need, as a Labour Government did previously. I was a bit of a critic of the last Labour Government on occasion, but there is no doubt that, overwhelmingly, my constituents were greatly assisted by their policies. I said so at the time, and I have said so many times since then.
	This debate is essential, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton on introducing it. I hope that, as a result, Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers will recognise how vital it is that change should come.

Jeremy Lefroy: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on poverty.
	Evidence from my constituency certainly suggests that an increasing number of people are finding it very difficult, or impossible, to make ends meet. That applies particularly to those who are out of work, but, as other Members have said, it also applies to those who are in work. However, I think it important for us not to restrict our review to welfare reforms. More and more people in my constituency, and indeed throughout the country, are entering work and finding a way out of poverty as a result of the Government’s focus on job creation and apprenticeships.
	We also need to consider the overall effect of the work that is being done to cut the deficit. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the purpose of that work is to maintain confidence in the United Kingdom as a borrower, to keep interest rates down—let us not forget that we are currently spending nearly £50 billion a year in interest, and that the figure is rising—and to ensure that we as a country can maintain a proper welfare safety net for our people, not just in the short term but in the long term. A country that continues to run a 6.8% annual
	budget deficit will eventually be unable to afford not only a welfare safety net, but the other vital safety nets that we provide.

Debbie Abrahams: The hon. Gentleman makes many very measured speeches, and I know that this will be no exception. Does he agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) that the number of working people who live in poverty is now greater than the number in workless households?

Jeremy Lefroy: I do agree, and I shall say more about that in a moment. It is a matter that should concern all Members on both sides of the House, and I do not believe that the Government are immune to that concern.
	A universal free health service and a universal free education service are also vital safety nets, but it is essential for the Government, on behalf of the nation as a whole, to keep a close eye on both open and hidden poverty. Poverty is often more hidden than open: many people do not complain and do not come to our surgeries, but get on with it, day in, day out. However, those people are really struggling, and it is incumbent on the Government to keep an eye on them. Governments exist for all their citizens, just as we as Members of Parliament represent all our constituents, whether they voted for us or not. Certainly, they do not exist only for the 20% or 25%—or fewer, if we count those below the voting age—who cast a vote for them. I know that Ministers in the Department have always taken that very seriously—especially the Secretary of State, not least when he established the Centre for Social Justice, of which I have been a supporter for some time.
	It is also vital for Governments to consider both the short-term and the long-term effects of their policies. As I have said in the House before, I believe that in the short term we need to look again at the way in which the spare room rent subsidy is being implemented. Increasingly, arrears are accumulating. One social housing provider in my constituency already has arrears of 37%, and it is a good provider. Many others have far lower collection rates. That will eventually lead to evictions or write-offs, both of which are costly in human and financial terms. A suggestion I have made before is that the rate for the spare room rent should be substantially lowered from its current percentage levels to a fairly nominal amount initially if we are to maintain the principle, which I believe we should, and therefore make it affordable. It should be increased only as the supply of suitable accommodation approaches demand.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned sanctions, which are applied to some of my constituents in a rather arbitrary manner. I ask the Minister to consider the way in which the Department sanctions jobseekers. I think it important for sanctions to exist, because we cannot be taken for a ride, but those who are genuinely seeking work should not be sanctioned as a result of mere technicalities, as has happened in my constituency.
	The Chancellor recently talked of removing benefits from those aged under 25. I shall say more in a moment about the £25 billion hole that needs to be filled. Certainly, everything possible should be done to ensure that the under-25s have all the support they need in the form of
	education, training and work. It is clearly important for people to see benefits as a safety net rather than a way of life, but removal of, for instance, housing benefit from under-25s across the board would have a drastic impact on young people who need to live away from home and who have no support from their families. The YMCA in Stoke-on-Trent is an excellent organisation. Its managing director, who is a friend of mine, drew my attention to the consequences that such action would have on its excellent provision for young people, most of whom it is trying to get into work. This is a case of supporting people during transition. For younger people, we need to recast this support almost as income for productive work for all those who are able, so they get used to the idea of work, which almost all of them want to take up; but that support must remain.
	We need to do more to help councils deliver more homes, perhaps by relaxing the existing borrowing rules for local councils, particularly on affordable and social homes. We also need to look at the possibility of localising employment schemes. The Work programme is doing some very important work around the country, but I would like it to become more local, so local councils can take more responsibility for running it in their own areas. The universal credit is incredibly important and I wholeheartedly support it. When it is introduced in each area, we should look at localising support and giving responsibility for managing finances as much as possible to local councils.
	Finally, let me return to the question of the £25 billion hole. This is a fact and it is something a future Government, of whichever party, will have to face. There are so many ways we can reduce it. We can raise taxes, we can cut departmental spending and we can cut benefit and pension spending, or we can increase growth, which clearly is the preferable option we would all like to see. However much growth is increasing by at the moment, however, it is not going to fill that gap in the coming years. Can we raise more in taxes? I would rather see whether we can remove some of the concessions, and I have mentioned before the high rate of pension tax allowance, which is not a tax rise but is reducing the allowances people on higher incomes can claim when making pension payments. That costs us several billion pounds a year.
	I do not believe there is much room to cut departmental spending in certain areas. I would certainly not want to see any more cuts in defence and security and schools and education, but we do need to have a look at one or two of the existing ring fences, although perhaps over the coming few years and not immediately. For instance, I would look at different ways of maintaining the free-at-the-point-of-delivery national health service—more through a progressive contributory national insurance system than out of tax. That would be one way of raising the income required to pay for our free-at-the-point-of-delivery health service and giving the Chancellor a little more wriggle-room on the £25 billion.
	In conclusion, I think it is vital to look at poverty not just in terms of welfare reforms—important though those are and though their impact is—but in the round at all the things the Government are doing, whether in the field of job creation or protecting the vital national health service and the vital schools budget. Therefore, although I support this motion, if this inquiry is to go ahead it should look at all those things in the round, rather than just focusing on one or two of the points that have been raised.

Steve Rotheram: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and join him in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for finding time to accommodate today’s important debate.
	It is crucial when the Chancellor complacently talks of a recovery that Opposition Members articulate the more accurate reality for the hard-pressed and hard-working families of Britain, but I will concentrate on the effects of the reforms on my city, and I make no apology for doing that.
	According to a study by Sheffield Hallam university and the Financial Times more than 64% of neighbourhoods in the Liverpool city region can be categorised as being in economic deprivation. The average for a local authority is just 15%. Such a stark statistic should in itself explain why Liverpool’s five MPs—I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is present—have been so steadfast and vocal in this place in our opposition to the Government’s welfare reforms and cuts across the spectrum.
	Let us look at the issue of the abolition of council tax benefit. While Liverpool opted to reduce rebates by no more than 8.5%, a further 44,000 Liverpool households of working age have had to start paying additional council tax as a result of the Government change, at an average of £1.70 per week. I know some Government Members will scoff at that, and I know it works out as roughly the same amount per year as the Prime Minister pays for a haircut, but when just a few pounds a week makes all the difference the loss of £1.70 a week hits low-income households hard.
	There is not only the council tax benefit issue, of course. There is also the Government’s beleaguered bedroom tax, as we have heard, which does not just affect the disabled; it actively targets disabled people. This has detrimentally impacted on 11,600 working-age households in Liverpool with an average reduction in housing benefit of £14 per week. In Liverpool, despite the largest budgetary cut in the country and with the council being asked to do even more but with 52% less in budget, council officers have had to deal with a 34.2% increase in benefit appeals which in real terms equates to 6,768 individual cases with the resulting costs to the staffing budget.
	In 2013 Liverpool city council saw 7,360 people apply for discretionary housing payments, which amounts to a staggering 610% increase on 2012. More than four out of five of these applicants were social sector tenants affected by the bedroom tax. Liverpool city region is one of the five most indebted areas in the UK and the national, regional and local figure for individual and household accumulated debt is rising. That is why unemployment is never a price worth paying and why exploitative zero-hours contracts and the proliferation of part-time temporary jobs are never the answer.
	My constituency of Liverpool, Walton is in the top 10 constituencies for the highest levels of unemployment and, as I am certain other Members would agree, the vast majority of the unemployed people who come to see us are desperate to find work. They want a job—they want to find employment—but unfortunately opportunities are limited.

Stephen Twigg: May I reinforce the point my hon. Friend is making about people wanting to work? I held a jobs fair in Liverpool in October of last year, to which more than 3,000 people desperate for jobs or apprenticeships came. I want to support what my hon. Friend said about the overwhelming majority of the people who are unemployed in his constituency and mine desperately wanting work.

Steve Rotheram: I agree, and I support the sentiments behind my hon. Friend’s holding of that fantastically successful jobs fair and the sentiments of the ordinary people we speak to. Sometimes we in this place see everything through the prism of what happens in London and that is wrong. Out in our constituencies the reality is very different from the growth we sometimes see not across the board in London and the south-east, but in certain parts of this end of the country.

Michael Penning: One of the reasons why I brought the cruise terminal to Liverpool in my previous job as a Transport Minister was to create jobs, while that decision was refused by the previous Labour Government. A lot of Government Members have exactly the same aspirations as the hon. Gentleman has for his constituency—to bring jobs to the area, which is why I made that decision.

Steve Rotheram: I thank the Minister for that intervention and I have previously put on record my thanks to him for making that decision. It was a brave decision, but it was also the right decision for Liverpool and for this country. I might be playing into the hands of Conservative Members by saying this, but when we joined the EU—the common market, as it then was—Liverpool found itself on the wrong side of the country and business transferred to the east. However, Liverpool is once again an international destination of choice, and it now finds itself on the right side of the country for the increasing transatlantic trade. We are hoping to open the first Panamax facility in the UK there in the near future, which will create jobs. Perhaps the Minister can therefore claim some credit as a catalyst for the regeneration of our waterfront.

Michael Penning: I want some more credit, actually, because Peel Ports will do that, and I also granted permission for that. The commercialisation of the Manchester ship canal will really open up that part of the world to international trade.

Steve Rotheram: I am not going to say quite so many nice things about the other end of the M62, but I understand the Minister’s point.
	The massive increase in apprenticeships has been mentioned, and we welcome any genuine increase in their numbers. I used to work for the Learning and Skills Council, however, and I know that a large percentage of the increase in apprenticeships that the Government are claiming consists of rebranded training programmes for over-25s who are already in employment. What we really want is for the Government to tackle youth unemployment in those aged under 25 and to introduce real apprenticeships to bring those people job opportunities.
	Lots of people in my city are on benefits for the very first time. Far from being in clover—it beggars belief what we read in the right-wing press—they are struggling
	to make ends meet, and the problem that thousands of Liverpudlians are facing is new to them. For many, the idea that they might miss a rent payment is totally alien. They have not done that in the past 20 years, but since May 2010, their individual household incomes have been on such a downward trajectory that they now find themselves in rent arrears, seeking advice on debt management and unable to afford the daily cost of travel, food and energy.
	The Government now admit that, thanks to their flawed economic plan, they will miss their own economic targets by more than half, yet they still try to pass it off as a great achievement. That plan has meant that growth has been non-existent for three years, that small and medium-sized businesses have gone bankrupt at a rate we have not seen before, and that people’s money no longer goes as far on payday. The Money Advice Service estimates that 8.8 million people in the UK now have serious debt problems, but only 17% of that group have access to the debt advice that they need. That shows the depth of the problem.
	Figures suggest that 40% of the adult population in Liverpool are struggling with serious debt problems. Let us stop and consider that for a moment. More than a third of all working-age people are in serious debt. Their wages are simply not enough to pay off what they owe, let alone pay their monthly bills. That is central to my party’s reason for highlighting the cost of living crisis. The findings of the New Policy Institute prove that, for the first time, more than half of the 13 million people living in poverty in the UK are in working families. That really exposes the folly of the Government’s rhetoric about strivers and skivers, workers and shirkers. With the cost of living rising faster than wages in virtually every month since this Government came to office, it is a betrayal of the Britain we live in not to recognise that recovery is a hell of a long way off. The fact is that, out there in the real world, people are hurting.
	Just under 11,000 people were fed by the South Central and North Liverpool food banks between April and October 2013. I took the opportunity to visit the food bank in my area on Friday, and the work that it is doing is unbelievable. It has never been so busy. Instead of listening to the absolute nonsense peddled by the Secretary of State for Education about life choices, we should be congratulating those volunteers and the people who donate to food banks so that our constituents and citizens can have a decent meal of a night. Forget the Government’s flawed line about the rise of food banks over a 10-year period while Labour was in office; that figure of 11,000 is double what it was just 12 months ago, and 35.3% of those who have been fed by the Liverpool food banks are children.
	The poverty inflicted by this Government has wider implications. In a letter to the British Medical Journal, David Taylor-Robinson of the university of Liverpool and his fellow academics have highlighted the doubling of malnutrition-related hospital admissions nationally since 2008. I am sure that many Members will also have seen the recent briefing from the charity Shelter, encouraging those with rent or mortgage repayment problems to seek early advice rather than allowing the problems to build up. Unfortunately, the cuts to citizens advice bureaux and legal aid make it more difficult to get
	appropriate advice. One of the advice centres in my constituency has had to close. In quarter 2 of this financial year—I am going to run out of time unless somebody intervenes on my to allow me an extension. [Hon. Members: “We can’t.”] All right. In that case, I have run out of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. To try to ensure that every Member who has indicated that they want to participate in the debate may do so, I am going to reduce the time limit to seven minutes. I hope that that will mean that everyone will be able to contribute, although I cannot guarantee it. It might be necessary to reduce the time limit further.

John Hemming: These debates are important in highlighting matters of detail. I am pleased to have signed the motion for this one, which calls for an inquiry into the effects of the benefit system. The biggest detail involved in all this is of course the deficit. When this Government took over, the country was borrowing £150 billion a year, which was added on to the debt each year. If we reduce that too quickly, however, it will cause economic dislocation, so it will have to be reduced relatively gradually. That is why it is surprising that the Opposition are criticising the Government for not reducing it to zero straight away. Obviously, we cannot do that sort of thing.
	Another important detail is universal credit. I am very supportive of universal credit because it goes down the route of creating an environment in which people can benefit by being in work. There are people who abuse the benefit system, but the majority of people who receive benefits need support from the state in order to live. It is important, when we are dealing with the people who are abusing the system, that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
	I have been doing some work with the 6 Towns credit union. One issue with universal credit is that people will receive a sum of money each month then have to pay their costs out of it. The reason for doing that is to ensure that people who go back into work and are paid monthly do not suddenly find themselves unable to cope financially. There is no doubt that that prospect often makes people frightened of taking a job. The motivation of paying universal credit on a cash-flow basis is a good one, because it is designed to create an environment in which it is easier for people to get into work.
	To achieve that, however, there must be ways for them to manage their cash flow, because not everybody is good at that. That is why I am pleased that the 6 Towns credit union has expanded its modus operandi and its common bond to include a lot of Birmingham, including my constituency. When universal credit comes in, my constituents will now have a service towards which the Government have put some money, because they have put money towards credit unions generally.
	Specific issues need to be looked at. I always worry about the debate on food banks, for example. If we do not look at individual cases and work out why people are depending on food banks for three days, we cannot
	identify the problems in the system. The Trussell Trust was created in 2000, so in 1999 there was no Trussell Trust and no food banks. There were schemes then—people would go to supermarkets and get stuff that was out of date; there were all sorts of ways in which people found emergency food support. The fact that we have good organisations with good volunteers offering a good service does not mean that suddenly everybody who is using that service is doing so as a result of changes in Government policy. We have to review this in detail and look at the individual cases.
	One of the general sorts of cases I am concerned about involves people transferring off employment and support allowance and then not being informed enough to claim jobseeker’s allowance. I believe that the Government are working on dealing with that. A number of constituents have come to me with those cases when they are destitute. My top priority is to ensure that people are not destitute. We see that happening from time to time and we need to identify those cases. Sometimes when I tell people that we can give them a voucher for the food bank they tell me, “I cannot afford to cook the food, so there is no sense in me having anything from the food bank.” It is important to prevent people from being destitute, and I have raised this issue directly with the Minister and in a ten-minute rule Bill.

Jeremy Lefroy: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about one problem with the transfer from ESA to JSA. A lady in my constituency says, “I am simply not fit for work, but by signing on for JSA I have to say that I am available and fit for work.” She does not want to tell a lie.

John Hemming: This is where the difficulties lie. I do not think that those are the details of the situation, but people misunderstand the situation and end up suffering as a result. I have never liked any of the cuts, but we have to make cuts because of the deficit. The one I would be most uncomfortable about is restraining the inflation increase to 1%, and if things get better, I would at least like to examine the situation of the people right at the bottom of the pile—those on £71.70 a week or some £52.35 if they are under 25. They may only be losing out by £1.40 a week, but that is a lot for someone in that situation. I would like the Government to consider that issue.
	I am also worried about the interrelationship between the welfare cap and victims of domestic violence, and whether there are situations that need more attention. I believe that people can get discretionary housing payment to leave a violent home, but it is important that we ensure that there is a route out of domestic violence for women. I am worried about that issue, just as I am about some wrongful sanctioning that I have seen. That does not help at all, because it undermines the whole process.
	I would also like to see a substantial increase in the minimum wage, because as the economy is improving the Government should look at that, rather than maintain things as they are. I might be the first person to mention that. As colleagues are aware, I am not so uncomfortable about the spare room rent. On Saturday, a constituent came to see me because they were living in a one-bedroom council flat with a family of four. If that is happening, clearly there is space for people to downsize; I know
	that Bromford Housing Group has difficulty renting out single-bedroom properties, as it has said that to me. The details matter on this, and I am trying to get those details from my local authority in order to look at these things.
	I am unhappy with my local authority cutting the amount of money it is putting into council tax benefit and therefore increasing the amount of council tax paid by people on JSA. We also have to examine the issue of habitual residency for in-work benefits, because a situation where people are encouraged to come here to be self-employed so that they can get a large amount of benefits even if they are not earning any money being self-employed—this is The Big Issue case—is not a good way of doing things. Debt issues are critical, and I am pleased that the Government are making some moves on payday loans, because when people get into a mess it is difficult to get out of it.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that fiscal education in schools is playing a vital role in helping the next generation of adults to be able to manage their personal finances, however modest, and to understand how to stay out of debt?

John Hemming: That is very important. The essence of what we are trying to do with the universal credit is get people to be able to manage their accounts. Again, people such as those at 6 Towns credit union offer services that facilitate that. That is definitely the way to go, but we need government action—regulatory action—on payday loans because people are not necessarily that numerate and they see these things as a short-term solution without being aware that they create a long-term problem. That is clearly part of the issue.
	As I said at the start, the details are crucial. The motion calls for an inquiry to be set up that is independent of Parliament. I would prefer a parliamentary inquiry, but I am pleased to have my name down in support of a motion asking for these issues to be examined. The details are critical and they need to be kept under continuous review.

Chris Williamson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this incredibly important debate on the need for a commission of inquiry into the impact of this cruel, callous coalition’s policies on poverty in the United Kingdom. I wish to focus in large measure on the impact of housing and the welfare reforms that have been put in place, but I wish to start by addressing the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who referred to the pernicious reforms that have been made to the council tax benefit system. We hear a lot from the Government about freezing council tax. That is fine and dandy for the people who have the resources not to need council tax benefit, but the very poorest people, even in those local authority areas that had a freeze on their council tax, are seeing an increase in the amount of council tax they are expected to pay. That is absolutely disgraceful, and I do not know how Ministers can sleep in their beds at night when they are inflicting such penalties on the poorest people in our country.
	As I have said, housing is a key area in addressing poverty in our country. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said that the commission we are talking about should have a slightly wider remit, and that is important, as it should incorporate housing, too. What we saw when this Government came to power was a massive reduction in investment in affordable housing in our country. One of the first things they did was to cut it by 60%—that is what they did when they first came to power. Their housing policy is shambolic. They are not building anywhere near enough houses for the people in our country, and the houses they are building are too expensive—to buy or to rent. People are caught in a Catch-22 situation. Youth unemployment is growing, with about 1 million young people on the dole, and low pay is endemic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton pointed out, some 6.7 million people living in poverty in our country are in employment —that is disgraceful.
	Let me briefly touch on my personal story, and how things have changed from the 1970s in terms of what ordinary working-class people were able to do and the sorts of lifestyles they were able to afford, particularly the housing. I was a 19-year-old apprentice bricklayer when I was able to buy my first house, with the benefit of the option mortgage scheme brought in by the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government. I was earning £60 a week and I was able to buy a brand new three-bedroom house that backed on to a canal for £10,000. That was three times my salary then, but it would be impossible to do the same today because the average price paid by a first-time buyer is £185,000. I have checked on the internet what a bricklayer can earn these days. On average, they earn £10.28 an hour, or £21,382 a year, so the average price for a first-time buyer would be a multiple of 8.6 times their salary. In this day and age, an apprentice bricklayer earns around £170 a week, or £8,840 a year, so a multiple of 21 times their salary would be required. People can no longer put down roots in the way that they did, because they have been priced out of the market. I am talking not just about buying but renting as well.
	It is vital that we build the houses that people need. Labour is committed to building 200,000 homes per annum, which is vital in terms not just of delivering a social need but of putting thousands and thousands of people back into work. We need a renaissance in council housing, because the private rented sector is ill-suited to social housing, which has led to the obscene housing benefit subsidy system that was set up by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) when he was the Housing Minister. On 30 January 1991 he said:
	“If people cannot afford to pay that market rent, housing benefit will take the strain.”—[Official Report, 30 January 1991; Vol.184, c. 940.]
	Well, take the strain it most certainly has. Some £24 billion a year is being paid out in housing benefit. According to the House of Commons Library, £9.3 billion is going into the back pockets of private landlords. Compare that with the £1.1 billion this Government are putting into building affordable homes for people. The affordable homes programme summary said that will result in just over 67,000 homes per annum. Imagine if we put all
	that money into building homes for people. Think of all the jobs that could be created. If we just used the amount that is going to private landlords, we would be able to build 600,000 homes a year. We are building nowhere near that. We have a massive housing crisis in our country. There is a crazy housing subsidy system, which needs to be reformed. There are 1.7 million households on the housing waiting list across our country, 4,000 of whom are in Derby. More and more people are reliant on the vagaries of the private rented sector. That cannot go on. What we need is a change in emphasis. We need a bricks and mortar subsidy to build the homes that people need. We need a council house renaissance, we need to regulate the private rented sector and to ensure that land is released to build homes that people can afford.

Steve Rotheram: Does my hon. Friend also agree that Labour’s pledge, if we were to be the next Government, would mean an additional apprentice for every £1 million of public sector contracts?

Chris Williamson: That is a really important commitment. Let me refer if I may to some other statistics. I have talked about a massive investment in council housing. It is important to recognise that for every £1 of public sector investment in infrastructure, the Exchequer gets back 56p. As the net expenditure is somewhat less, it is well worth making that investment to generate the apprenticeships to which my hon. Friend referred and the jobs across the piece that are required, and to build the homes that people need. We need this commission. Its terms of reference should be somewhat wider than has been set out in the motion. If we can invest in the housing that we need, it will help to create stable communities, generate jobs and promote economic growth. Yes, we need a commission, but we also need a Labour Government in 2015 with the radical commitment that we saw in 1945 to deliver what Beveridge achieved. We need to deliver on the recommendations of the commission, which has been called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

Peter Bottomley: That was an interesting speech. I am glad to support the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) in his suggestion that we have a commission to provide comprehensive, unbiased measures of how action changes level of poverty—absolute and relative poverty. That should include what people spend their money on and what makes people more likely to find themselves in poverty. We know about disability and the dependency of people before they get a job. We know about people in retirement, family deformation and mental health issues. A whole range of considerations should be taken into account.
	The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) is no longer in the Chamber, but he made some comments about the national debt. Most of us know the difference between a deficit and a debt and could talk for ages about gross Government debt, public sector net debt, unadjusted measures of public sector net debt and UK net borrowing, whether as a percentage of gross national product or not.
	It is better to understand that the previous Labour Government had some merits. In their first three years, they stuck to the Conservative spending plans, net debt
	did not go up and we all benefited. From 2001, there was a massive expansion in public sector employment of 30% that was, I think, associated with the structural deficit exposed by the recession and the bank crisis.
	I started in public policy in the early 1970s when I ran a thing called the Family Allowance Movement, trying to introduce family allowances for the first child. A Labour Chancellor asked, “What is the point of having a family allowance? I am going to increase the married man’s tax allowance.” Those are the arguments we come back to 30 years later in a rather different sense. Balancing people’s resources and needs at any one time and over a life circle is how I prefer to look at it.
	Let us not make any comments about any individual, as my hope is that many of the people who follow us will make fewer mistakes than we did, but if, for example, the time of family formation comes later on average and more children are born into households that can make some reasonable provision for them, we will be better off. At one stage, I looked to see who was most likely to smoke, a habit that takes £60 or £70 out of post-tax income. The answer was lone parents on income support. We would be able to give a lone-parent family an extra £50 or £60 of disposable income if a third of our teenagers did not take up smoking. As those who are most likely to take up smoking are those who were most likely to be deprived in their early lives, we could make a difference to people’s lives.
	I am not absolutely certain that we should be too keen on a welfare system that guarantees independent housing to young people. My mother used to say that if someone was a lone parent, setting her up—it is normally a her rather than a him—in independent housing at the age of about 18 with a child, alone, is not the best thing as parents need to learn parenting from those who are around them.
	What makes a difference to me is how we can reduce the cost of borrowing by households or individuals, which is why I strongly support the mentions of credit unions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when credit unions will be able to charge a rate of interest per month that might look high to most of us but that is dramatically lower than the cost of door-to-door lending or some of the other sources of credit available to those who do not have assets or reliable incomes and who are in difficulty.
	I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) about how it was possible in his day for someone with ordinary earnings to buy an ordinary home. I first got a home in Worthing, my present constituency, in 1966. Almost anybody there who had a job could afford to buy a home. That has changed and it is crazy that we have an economic system in which half the value of a home is the site value. We must find some way of ensuring that ordinary people in ordinary jobs can afford to buy homes.
	We can also make a difference, as I did when I was involved in a small electrical contracting business before I came into Parliament. Most people’s earnings were twice their guaranteed earnings and by putting people almost on salaries I made sure that they could have guaranteed income for the year. Three quarters of my colleagues were able to buy their own homes for the first time. There are some mechanical things that matter.

Jeremy Lefroy: Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is also a problem for agency workers? As they do not have a long-term guaranteed income, they are unable to get mortgages.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I appreciated his speech, too. We ought to try to ensure that we have sources of lending in which people understand the industries in which people are working. That is where the building society movement came from—originally, it was about building homes. If we could get some mutuality back into the agency area, people would be able to decide who could be lent money and who should be deferred.
	The last point in my mind concerns how we can go on preparing people for the jobs and occupations of the future. Many people’s futures will be as entrepreneurs, as they set up their own businesses; others will be in employment. I remember with pleasure Peter Thurnham, one of our former colleagues. When he was made redundant, he used his redundancy money to buy two machine tools, set up an engineering business and eventually employed 150 to 200 people. People sometimes say to me, “MPs shouldn’t have outside interests.” I would far prefer to have in Parliament people such as Peter Thurnham, who can tell us how business and employment work and how to get more people off welfare and into the kind of jobs that make them pretty independent for most of their life.
	Many of us will require some support at some stage in our life; relatively few of us need support all the way through our lives. Before this Government came to office, we were getting to a stage at which too many families were in dependency from generation to generation; Keith Joseph told us quite a lot about that. Statistics show that only 10% of people who were in the bottom decile—the bottom 10%—10 years ago are in the bottom 10% this year. There is a great deal more movement among those who are poor or very poor than most people understand.

Chris Bryant: indicated dissent.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; when he speaks, perhaps he can give his statistics. We need a commission, with statistics that we can all rely on from the Office for National Statistics, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Katy Clark: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I congratulate all those who signed the motion and did the work to secure this debate, because I think that a commission of inquiry should be established to investigate the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on the incidence of poverty. I say that because of my experience as a constituency MP, and my knowledge, from this place and other places, of what is happening nationally.
	The reality is that all of us are inundated in our constituency surgery by constituents who are experiencing the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms. Mr Scott, a constituent, came to see me last week; he was diagnosed with bowel cancer last summer, and had applied for the
	personal independence payment. He has worked all his life; it was the first time that he had had contact with the welfare benefit system. He is still awaiting receipt of any money. Many other constituents who come to see me, including carers and those who are disabled, are suffering as a result of the bedroom tax.
	There has been a massive increase in poverty in this country since 2010. Some of that is associated with welfare reforms; some is related to other aspects of Government policy, and what is going on in the country with low pay, wage freezes, wage cuts, and less secure forms of employment, and all the other issues that we spend time talking about in this place.
	We particularly need to focus clearly on welfare reforms, both for those in work and those who are not working. Since 1997-98, there has been a decrease in poverty for most of the time. Some 28% of the population lived in absolute poverty in 1997, but by 2010, that had dropped to 15%—still a scandalously high figure that is unacceptable in any civilised country, but the reality was that 2.3 million children and 2 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty in that time. The country can be proud of that, even though, as I say, a huge amount more needed to be done. Since 2010, absolute poverty has increased by 1.4 million people, including 300,000 children and 200,000 pensioners. There can be absolutely no doubt that much of that increase in poverty has been a direct result of the coalition Government’s policies.
	I will talk about some of those policies. We have had these debates already in this place, and we have divided on many of these issues. One of the impacts that will have the biggest cumulative effect over time is the uprating of benefits in line with the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index. Of course, we already see the impact of that change. In 2010, when the Government changed the indexation, the difference between RPI and CPI was the difference between 4.6% and 3.1%. In every year since, RPI has been higher than CPI. Of course, the impact on our pensions and benefits affects disproportionately those on the lowest incomes.
	Let us look at those in receipt of carer’s allowance. In April 2010 they received £53.90 a week. If that had increased under the old system, using RPI, they would now be receiving £61.08 a week, rather than £59.75. They are therefore £167.96 worse off each year as a result of the switch from RPI to CPI.
	We see a similar situation with disability living allowance. Someone in receipt of the higher care component is now £221 worse off as a result of the switch. People with more serious disabilities who are on the higher rate mobility component are now £155.48 worse off a year. Those who receive both the higher rate mobility component and the higher care component are now £376.48 worse off a year. Those might sound like relatively small amounts to some people, but the reality is that those benefits are received by some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country, who were already struggling and finding it difficult to cope.
	People in receipt of employment and support allowance—another form of benefit that many constituents come to see us about—are now £342.68 worse off a year as a result of the shift from RPI to CPI. It is not just that shift, but the impact of other policies, such as the 1% cap on benefits, that is having an effect. Ministers
	have claimed that those in the ESA support groups are exempt from that, but of course that benefit is both a basic payment and an additional payment. Although one is exempt from the 1% cap, the other is not. The reality is that for almost every benefit we look at, we are seeing our constituents receive less money every week, every month and every year.

Chris Williamson: Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting benefits for the poorest people in our communities has a knock-on impact on economic growth, because they inevitably spend the money in their pockets in the communities in which they live?

Katy Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that that is the case in his constituency, as it is in mine. In areas that are disproportionately reliant on the public sector and the welfare state, cutting benefits is taking millions of pounds out of the economy every year, which is simply putting us in a worse situation.
	We have also seen a massive increase in the impact of benefit sanctions, as I am sure many Members are only too aware from their constituencies. It is often the same people receiving those benefit sanctions again and again, and each time it is for a longer period. Many of those people have nowhere to go, because they can go to a food bank only three times.
	The other major concern is the bedroom tax, which constituents come to see me about all the time. In North Ayrshire we have seen a 756% increase in discretionary housing payment applications. Only 66% are accepted, which means that a third of those people do not get the payment. Indeed, when people go back to apply the next time, because it is a time-limited payment, they are often refused. That is having an impact on council rent arrears. Rent arrears in North Ayrshire, for example, have increased from 3.6% of annual rent to 5.5%.
	Those are just a few examples from my constituency, but we all have many others. This is having a massive impact on our country. We are seeing a massive shift in wealth. We need someone to look at that seriously, which is why I think that the motion before us—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Simon Danczuk.

Simon Danczuk: Let me start by thanking those Members who pressed for this important debate, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I believe that our welfare system is something that we should be proud of in this country. It provides a vital safety net, and not just for people who have fallen into poverty, but for the disabled, older people and those who need to get back into employment.
	However, we should not fall into supporting an argument that suggests that the system is perfect. Too many people take the view that the welfare system is a sacred cow that should be left alone. I do not share that view; on the contrary, I believe that self-reliance and making the welfare state much more accountable and appropriate to people are extremely important. I certainly believe that reforms can be made, especially to the way that the system supports and challenges people—and, yes, pushes them back into employment. However, when reform of
	the welfare system is undertaken we must be certain that we do not abandon the most vulnerable people and push them into poverty.
	I will give two examples of the Government’s welfare reforms having left vulnerable people without the safety net they need. First, I want to talk about one of my constituents, Sheila Holt. On Friday I met her father, Mr Kenneth Holt, and other members of her family. Sheila is 47 years old. She had an exceptionally traumatic childhood that I will not detail here, but needless to say it was a period of her life that scarred her mentally. She has not worked for 27 years because she has a severe psychiatric condition; she is unable to work. Because of cuts, I suspect, Sheila was relatively recently persuaded to sign off her psychiatric treatment. Soon after that, she was being pushed by the DWP towards the back-to-work scheme. Her family advocated for her, explaining that she had had trauma in early life and had a psychiatric condition. They made those points strongly, but to no avail. Sheila had to start attending back-to-work classes in another town. She struggled with meeting other people. Most importantly, no mental health support or service was offered to her. The safety net was not there for her. She also had to start paying the bedroom tax. Needless to say, she was falling into poverty and beginning to worry about becoming increasingly poor. She started to become agitated and her medication could not keep up with her condition. On 6 December she was admitted to Birch Hill hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. A few days later, she suffered a heart attack—at the age of 47, which is my age—and she is now in a coma.
	The reason I tell this story is that Sheila’s family want people to be aware that she was pushed into this situation. Soon after Sheila started her life, she experienced terrible trauma that mentally crippled her. The truth is that she is trying to live through the welfare system as best she can, but the unsophisticated and haphazard way in which it has been changed has forced a very vulnerable woman into a terrible predicament. She had a very difficult early upbringing and now finds herself in the situation she is in today.
	My second point is about the discretionary social fund, which has provided crisis loans to people in need. Hon. Members will be aware that in April this year the DWP passed that responsibility on to local authorities. They will also be aware that the fund is not ring-fenced, and it has been open to local authorities to spend it however they wish. For me, this came to light because a number of constituents were presenting to me with difficulty in being able to claim any sort of crisis loan from any sort of crisis fund. One woman who came to see me was heavily pregnant and was being told by Rochdale council’s social services that unless she provided a carpet in her property she would lose the child, who would be taken into care. Ironically, the local authority was not administering the local discretionary social fund in a way that would enable her to claim money to be able to get the carpet.
	Rochdale is not an exception to the rule. I carried out some research looking at local authorities right across the country, and it shows that the passing down to them of this responsibility has meant that they have set criteria far too strongly, to the point where one local authority has spent only 1% of its budget for helping people through crisis loans or grants. The irony is that, when the fund was administered nationally, it encouraged
	self-reliance because it was a loan that the recipient could pass back, but since responsibility was given to local authorities it has not done so because it is now a grant that cannot be passed back.
	The best bit came just before last Christmas, when the Government announced that the fund will be scrapped completely from 2015. It will not exist at all and there will be no safety net for those people who really need it. They will be pushed towards loan sharks and money lenders. That will certainly happen in Rochdale and, I have no doubt, in other places as well.

Chris Williamson: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is tantamount to the reintroduction of the Poor Law, which was abolished by the 1945 Labour Government?

Simon Danczuk: I certainly take on board the point that we are moving that way in some respects. I am wholly in favour of reform of the welfare state, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, but it has to be done compassionately and it has to retain the safety net. If we do not do that, we will see, as my hon. Friend suggests, a return to Victorian values in the way that we administer our welfare state.
	I call on the Government to reverse their decision on the discretionary crisis fund. I believe that the purpose of the welfare system is to provide a safety net for the vulnerable, but it is clear that some of the Government’s reforms are destroying parts of that safety net and leaving people much more vulnerable to poverty. As my hon. Friends have said, we need an inquiry into how the reforms are impacting on people so that they are not abandoned and left to poverty.

Debbie Abrahams: May I start by congratulating my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)? I agree with him that we must reform the welfare system and make it sensitive to the needs of the 21st century. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who is another constituency neighbour of mine—I am in total agreement with the points he raised—and the other hon. Members responsible for securing this debate.
	I want to spend the next few minutes discussing a few points, particularly those that constituents have raised with me in my surgeries and elsewhere. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation annually monitors social exclusion and poverty and produces data on them. Its most recent report, which was published last month, shows that 3.5 million children, or 27%, live in poverty. In some parts of my constituency, the figure is nearly one in two. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that it expects an increase of 1.1 million children living in poverty by 2020 as a result of tax and benefit changes.
	Three million parents also live in poverty. The number of pensioners living in poverty has fallen to 1.5 million, or 14%, which is the lowest level in 30 years, but the number of working-age adults without children living in poverty has risen to 4.5 million, which is the highest level in 30 years.
	That is only half the story, because those relative levels of poverty relate to median incomes. The average income has gone down by 8% since 2008, which means
	that 2 million people who would have been deemed to be in poverty in 2008 are not classified as such now, because incomes have dropped. Incomes are going down, but prices are rising. The energy prices of the big six have gone up by 37% since 2010 and food prices went up by 32% between 2007 and 2012.
	The most worrying thing—this point has already been made—is that we are seeing an increase in the working poor. For the first time since the data series started back in the 1980s, poverty in working households is higher than that in workless and retired families combined. Therefore, work is clearly not paying. In spite of a shared objective of wanting our welfare system to make work pay, it is not. I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said about phasing in the introduction of some of the welfare measures. They have been brought in too soon, and they are having a huge impact on families.
	Related to the increase in the number of working households living in poverty is the increase of the number of people in low-paid work. For 46% of working families in poverty, one or more of the adults is paid less than the living wage. In total, about 5 million people are being paid below that level, which disproportionately affects women, 27% of whom are paid less than £7.40 an hour.
	If we look at the effects of welfare reforms on poverty, we find that instead of alleviating poverty, it is exacerbating it. Our social welfare model is based on principles of inclusion, support and security for all—protecting any one of us should we fall on hard times, or become ill or disabled. Welfare is there to assure us of our dignity, as well as the basics of life, and to give us a hand up, not a handout; the current welfare reforms are doing anything but that.
	I want to mention Rebecca, who came to see me at my surgery on Saturday. She is blind, and not only has she had her care package reduced from 13 hours to eight hours, but she is absolutely terrified about what the migration from disability living allowance to personal independence payments will mean to her. She said, “I will not see anybody from when I see you”—her personal adviser was with her—“until Monday, because of the lack of support that I am getting.” She is not alone. A raft of measures is affecting the ability of disabled people to live as normal a life as possible.
	We have heard about people on employment and support allowance, and the trials and tribulations of going through the work capability assessment. One constituent on ESA, who has a heart condition, had a heart attack in the middle of going through the WCA process. He was advised to leave and he went to hospital, but a week later he got a letter saying that he had been sanctioned because he had left the work capability assessment. That is not atypical. We have also heard about the bedroom tax, with 500,000 people affected nationally. In Oldham, where 2,048 people are affected, there are only 500 properties for them to move into, which is absolutely absurd.
	We still do not know the cumulative effects of all these measures. Despite the valiant efforts of the people behind the WOW—War on Welfare—petition, which has got 100,000 signatures, we still do not have an agreement on a cumulative assessment of all the different measures.
	Sanctions have been mentioned. One person who came to see me had been a Jobcentre Plus adviser until relatively recently, and he told me that there is a deliberate culture to develop a sanctions target mentality. Even if people have followed everything they are meant to do, they are still sanctioned, with bogus appointments being made to set them up to fail. That is not just, and it is not what we expect of our welfare system. The implications for health and the social effects on our communities are dire. I commend the commission—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Lyn Brown: There is no doubt in my mind that poverty is increasing, and that a major factor in that increase is the vicious and misguided welfare reforms that are beginning to bite in my community. The scale of the impact of changes to the social security system is really quite staggering. As of September last year, 598 households in Newham are affected by the benefit cap, of which 75% are in the private rented sector, with all the vulnerability that goes with that. Larger households are the worst hit: 80% of them have three or more children. Three quarters of main claimants are women and more than half come from lone parent households. With an average loss of £90 a week, it is clearly families—that means children—who are suffering at the sharp end of these reforms.
	Some 2,113 households in Newham have been hit by the bedroom tax, with many choosing to pay and stay in order to hang on to the family, social, school and other community networks they desperately rely on. The average loss is £16 a week. A further 25,227 households are caught up in the council tax benefit localisation and the cut to the overall amount available. The average loss here is £3.50 a week. Taking all the losses across the three categories—the benefits cap, the bedroom tax and the council tax—the loss to households in Newham each year is £8.9 million. It is obvious from these figures that such losses cannot be experienced without a serious impact on families, children and the local economy.
	The danger for policy makers and politicians is that we assess the impact of these changes serially and separately, whereas families experience them collectively and cumulatively. In our debates in this Chamber over the past months, we have looked in detail at issues relating directly to this subject and to the incidence of poverty, its causes and its consequences. Food banks, zero-hours contracts, payday loans and high-cost credit are just a few, and it is worth reminding ourselves that each of these is not a stand-alone issue; they are interlinked and have a cumulative and often devastating impact on the lives of many of my constituents. Running through them all is the imminent threat of poverty, and underpinning them all is the spectre of the Government’s welfare reforms.
	In 2009, there was just one food bank in Newham; now there are at least six, and at least four places where the hungry can get a free meal. The scale of provision is indicative of the scale of the problem. Newham is a place of widespread deprivation, yet it is from this community that food is collected and donated—by schools and faith groups and individuals paying a little extra as part of their weekly shop. These donations are from people who absolutely understand how difficult life is for those who have even less than they do. The poor are giving to the even poorer.
	I will give an example of where a food bank stepped in to help when a failure of social security tipped Mr K into crisis. A single man in his thirties with learning difficulties and physical disabilities, his employment support allowance was suspended when he attended a medical. He had no money to live on for three months and could not afford to heat his home or pay his bills. The food bank supported him for a month with food and advice, and assured a successful ESA appeal. Mrs Y was supported after her husband disappeared, leaving her and the children alone. The police suspected suicide, but her benefits were stopped, as they were claimed by her husband. Community Links, a fabulous voluntary sector organisation in my constituency, supported Mrs Y with food until she could get her benefits transferred and reinstated. Although food banks have done well supporting people through crises, that shows how “on the edge” people actually are—just about keeping their heads above water, for ever vulnerable to the slide into hunger because of job loss, pay or hours cuts, reduced social security payments, or, as I have seen far too often at my surgeries, a blunder by the Department for Work and Pensions that stops essential support, regardless of the consequences.
	It is so wrong that in the 21st century, people are forced to rely on the good will of neighbours to ensure their well-being. The community in which I live is poor but always generous. The plight of those reliant on food banks is something the commission of inquiry should investigate. I am grateful again to Community Links, which, in order to understand better how these changes are rolling out in our communities, carried out in-depth quality research into the circumstances of local people. The localisation of council tax, the benefits cap and the bedroom tax are hitting poor people indiscriminately, regardless of their needs or situation, and the people who responded to the survey felt they were being stigmatised for situations over which they had no control. There is no support to help people manage or cope with the transition, while the survey tells us categorically that people are struggling to make ends meet, cutting back on essential items—heating or eating—and prioritising paying rent, thereby exacerbating the choice between food and comfort and safety.
	When we have the commission of inquiry, it must not just concern itself with the economics of the poverty figures. It must hear the human stories of the people who stand behind the Community Links research and who go to our food banks. It must consider and respond to the reality of their lives, as we in this House must address the sorry and devastating impact of the changes that are agreed to here, but that are felt acutely in the world outside.

Nia Griffith: The first question that we must ask ourselves is why we make social security payments to people. We make them because people have lost their jobs, which is a traumatic event in itself. We make them because of sickness or disability. We make them to people who are in work, but are on low incomes. Some 68% of those who are affected by the Government’s welfare cuts are in work, according to the Resolution Foundation. I will come back to those people in a moment. We make payments to prevent homelessness and to protect people from living in squalid, cold and damp conditions—conditions that will make them more
	susceptible to disease. We make payments to prevent malnutrition and the diseases that go with it. That is particularly important for children. Malnutrition in childhood not only affects those children in adulthood, but can affect their children. The difference in longevity between well-off areas and poor areas is well documented.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has explained clearly, we are one of the richest countries in the world and there are other ways in which we could get the deficit down. I will not spend time talking about food banks, other than to say that 50% of the people who are going to food banks are doing so because of mistakes, changes or delays in their benefits.
	I want to focus on benefit rates, the Government’s policy on them and the effect that is having on people in Britain. To go back to the beginning, it is a bit of a misconception that UK benefit rates are based on a systematic estimate of minimum needs. Even from the start, back in 1948, benefit rates were a bit of a compromise between the actual needs and what was deemed to be affordable. Even by the time they were introduced, Rowntree had researched the fact that social need was an additional need to physical need. However, that was not recognised from the beginning. Although things were rather patchy until April 1975, in general, benefits increased in line with inflation. Since then, successive Governments have uprated benefits in line with inflation, mostly using the retail prices index until 2011. It is only from then onwards that we have seen the breaking of the link between inflation and the rates at which benefits rise.
	Universal credit will be subject to annual review, but not to mandatory uprating. There is a huge danger that it will fall behind inflation. However, well before we get to universal credit, with its myriad problems, which are not helped by the sheer incompetence with which it is being introduced, the Government should be looking at the impact of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013. Most working-age benefits have been limited to rises of 1% a year, and yet the costs of basic items such as food and energy—the very basics of life—are rising by significantly more. Even Government estimates suggest that there may be 200,000 more children in poverty, and the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that there could be 1 million more children in poverty by 2020.
	Which benefits have been affected? Let us look at the list. The first is tax credits, which have a huge impact. We called the cut to tax credits the strivers’ tax, because it affects people who are desperately trying to make ends meet. Such people are often doing two or three jobs and patching together a few hours here and a few hours there. They are then told that they have to find more hours. Those hours simply are not available; otherwise they would be doing them.
	I heard the most extraordinary statement from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) when we were talking about housing benefit and the bedroom tax. He came out with the absurd nonsense that two or three hours on the minimum wage would make up the £15 shortfall. Does he not understand how the system works? It is very complex and there are enormous differences depending on the family circumstances and who lives in the household, but essentially, if somebody who is getting housing benefit
	gets additional income, roughly 65% of it will go straight into a cut in their housing benefit. So in order to get an extra £15 a person effectively has to earn £45, and to get an extra £25 they effectively have to earn about £75. That does not take into account the transport costs to get to work and so on. That is a couple of days’ work at minimum wage at the absolute minimum, on top of the other work people are already doing—these are people who are in work.
	The effect of the changes is catastrophic. What have we seen cut? Tax credits, pension credits, savings credits, the health and pregnancy grant, loan parent benefits, contributory employment and support allowance, disability living allowance and council tax benefit have all been cut, and there is the switch to CPI instead of RPI. Luckily, in Wales people have been cushioned for one year by the Welsh Government, but whether that can continue and is affordable is another matter. The impact of all those cuts together is absolutely catastrophic.
	The other myth we often hear peddled is the fantastically high figures that, somewhere or other, a tabloid newspaper manages to find for housing benefit. That is because they take the example of one large family in a very expensive area of London, completely forgetting that the family does not receive that money—it goes straight into the pockets of a greedy landlord. That is one of the significant contributors to a high housing benefit bill.
	As our shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said clearly, and has been quoted today as saying, we will get the benefit bill down. How will we do that? We will put people back to work, we will ensure that the national minimum wage keeps up with inflation and we will bring in measures to encourage employers to introduce the living wage, through tax breaks in the first year of its introduction. Frankly, we could make £3 billion of savings simply by helping people to earn more and pay more tax. They would then not need as much in the way of tax credits. We will have a house building programme that will put people into social housing at more sensible rents, thereby reducing the housing benefit bill. We have already seen how a two-bedroom house in the private sector can be far more expensive than a three-bedroom house in the social sector.
	There is so much we could be doing. In this motion, we ask for a commission to look at the impact of poverty because we are very concerned that not just this generation but generations to come will be affected by the dreadful conditions and poverty we now see spreading across the UK.

John McDonnell: The question was asked earlier about how we pay off the deficit. There was a choice when the economic crisis hit: should those who created the economic crisis pay for it, or should the others? This Government decided that the poorest in our society would pay. To enable that to happen there had to be some form of ideological attack on the poorest—the latest example is the programme “Benefits Street”—that identifies a group of people and demonstrates that they somehow stand for all those people who are dependent on benefits. That is then used as a justification to cut benefits overall.
	The reality, as has been said time and time again, is that some of the people suffering hardest are those who are in work. In two weeks time in this city, the BAFTAs will be hosted again at the Royal Opera House. That weekend, the cleaners will be on strike and picketing outside. I will be joining them, because they are on just above the minimum wage, not on a living wage, and cannot afford to live in the city in which they work. A whole range of constituencies outside London have been mentioned. London and the south-east have an image of wealth, with gold pavements and so on, but there is a growing underclass in London of people in dire poverty.
	The anxiety and anger we have is that in two weeks the cleaners will go on strike because they have no other option. They are trying to get their employers to negotiate a London living wage, while this week the bank bonuses will be announced. Goldman Sachs has already explained that it looks like it will have a bumper year. We are back to pre-crisis bonus levels. I raised this with the Chancellor and, to give him his due, he actually said that there is an issue that we have to address. We have been told that in one company the average bonus payment is £2.7 million per member of staff. This is the contrast we have: people in work are struggling to just maintain a roof over their heads, feed and clothe their children and have a decent standard of income. At the same time, we have the profligacy and obscene levels of bonuses returning. I think the choice was made under this Government that the poor would pay for the crisis, not the rich who caused it.
	Examples have been given of the range of cuts that have been made. I will be frank: I do not know how people in my constituency survive on the income they are getting. I have no idea how they can afford to live on the minimal income that they are getting. We will have a debate in a few weeks’ time about the WOW petition and people with disabilities, who are among some of the hardest hit. However, the latest statistics show that we have 13,000 children in my borough living in poverty, and it is a relatively wealthy borough. We are a working-class area with high levels of employment and, usually, not bad levels of income, but even in my constituency we are seeing child poverty on a scale that we have not seen since the second world war, with all the problems associated with that.
	One of the main problems has been touched on by others: the fact that people cannot afford a roof over their heads. House prices have gone through the roof. People cannot afford them on the incomes they are getting, but what do the Government do? They increase rents in the social sector—in council housing and social housing—and at the same time cut benefits. The argument put forward by the Government—it has some logic to it—was that if they cut benefits, somehow the landlords would stop charging higher rents, but the reverse has happened. Rents have gone up in my area. Getting a three-bedroom property in the private rented sector means spending between £1,200 and £1,600 a month, and we are not talking about high standards of property. We are just talking about the roof over people’s heads.
	When people go to the council, the discretionary money that has been awarded does not meet the difference between the loss of benefits and the rents they are now being charged. What is happening, therefore—this is the irony of it—is homelessness on a scale that we have not seen for perhaps two decades and children living in
	bed and breakfasts again. We were promised that that would never happen again, and it is happening. Children are living in appalling conditions in bed and breakfasts, and then they are farmed out round the country, which completely disrupts their education and breaks down the connections with their wider family. That destabilises whole families as well, because people under that pressure begin to implode. It is therefore no wonder that we have family breakdown increasing in many of our areas as a result of the financial pressures that people are under.
	That is the result of a whole series of reforms that have been introduced as part of an incremental development to attack the poor. Those of us on the Labour Benches should say: “No more. That’s enough now.” We are the people who invented the welfare state. We introduced it—working, yes, with Beveridge, the Liberals and others. It was not just to provide a safety net; it was to give people the opportunity to achieve their life chances. This Government are destroying that opportunity for people to thrive and enjoy the life chances that we wanted to give them.

David Davies: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, does he agree or disagree with his shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, who wants to be tougher than the Tories on benefits?

John McDonnell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here under the last Government, but I was one of those who argued for a massive redistribution of wealth to tackle poverty in this country, and I will continue to argue that point. I do not think that any of the parties should get into this Dutch auction about who can be more brutal towards the poor, but from the detail of the policy being advocated by the Opposition that I have heard, it is about achieving growth, getting people back into employment, ensuring a fair system of redistribution of wealth in this country and—this is the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) made—ensuring that people pay their taxes. At the moment we are living in a corporate kleptocracy, where corporations steal and rob from us through tax avoidance and tax evasion. If we could have some of that back, not only could we tackle the deficit, but that redistribution of wealth could take place and we could lift people out of poverty, provide the homes they need and give them back the life chances that this Government are stealing from them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. In order to fit the last two speakers in before the Minister and the shadow Minister speak, I am reducing the time limit on speeches down to five minutes.

Sheila Gilmore: Like all other speakers, I am grateful to those who lobbied for this debate.
	There is a need for some good research into what is going on—research that would very much form part of a commission. I want to give an example of research started by the previous Government that is not being conducted by this Government—in this case, research into the employment and support allowance and the
	work capability assessment. The last Government commissioned research into what happened to people who had been found fit for work. After three months, 22% were back in employment and 41% were on another benefit. There were still some missing people, but there was no explanation of where they were. After a year, only 23%—there was hardly any increase—were back in employment. However, 43% of those people were neither in employment nor on any other out-of-work benefits. Now 43% is an awful lot of individuals, but this research stopped so we do not know what has been going on since; we do not know whether the pattern has been consistent over the last few years. If it is the case, there are a lot of unexplained outcomes in respect of people living in great poverty.
	This issue is not just about people who have somehow been benefit dependent for all their lives. Professor Fothergill of Sheffield Hallam university recently gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee, and he pointed out that some of those most affected are couples in their 50s. Typically, people will be affected most by becoming ill at that stage in their lives, when illness really does begin to rack up and benefits for illness are most likely to be received. What happens if, say, a couple has one and a half incomes and has been comfortably off with the children grown up and a reasonable income coming in, but the main earner falls ill? There will be an immediate big loss of income because of the illness in itself. After a year, if that individual goes into the workplace activities group, which many do, they will lose even their employment and support allowance. At that stage, another £91 is lopped off their household income—and all this at a time when the costs are probably increasing because they are likely to be at home longer and have more heating bills to pay.
	If this couple are council or housing association tenants, they might well have a spare room and will also be hit by the bedroom tax. The second means test applied by many councils for discretionary housing payments will probably mean that, because there is still an earner in the household—albeit probably a part-time earner—they will not qualify for discretionary housing payment. They will be deemed to have sufficient income over the absolute basic amount for them to have this extra payment. After working for 35, 40 or perhaps even more years, this couple will have experienced a huge tumble from being comfortable to being in really straitened circumstances. If they have made any savings over their working period towards their retirement, the chances are that when they reach pension age, they will have been entirely eroded, creating further problems for the future.
	The irony in all this is that many of the measures introduced—I would hope that the research would cover this issue—are not actually making any great savings. We have heard a lot about the bedroom tax not making much in savings, but it is not the only thing. Housing benefit payments are due to increase, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has factored into its assessment. Why? Because half the expected increase—a substantial increase—is due to people in employment who will qualify for the benefit. Fewer people may be receiving jobseeker’s allowance at one end of the system, but further along the system, more will receive housing benefit. For one set of savings, there is a comparable set of costs. We have to look at that.
	We are not making the savings we think we are, and I believe the same is true of the employment and support allowance. There is a big mystery here. The number of people in receipt of that sort of benefit has gone down by far fewer than the number of people who have been found fit for work. What on earth is going on? I suspect that many people have simply come around through the system again. They were not well; they had to apply for benefit again. We are putting people through a lot of trauma and stress for very little saving.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. I wanted to speak in the debate to make the point that the crisis caused by the Government’s welfare reform policies is affecting constituencies up and down the length of the country and is affecting all types of constituency. My constituency comes out about average on the statistical lists of poverty, employment, unemployment and wealth in the UK. We have some areas of high wealth with wealthy individuals, but other areas, and some individuals living in the generally richer areas of the constituency, are suffering from the effects of Government policy in a way that has not been seen for a generation. That experience is evidenced by the growing demand for and reliance on food banks, soup kitchens and other outlets that provide free food. One such food bank was opened in my constituency last year, and another is under way. Another six, seven or eight organisations provide support of various kinds which enables people to survive from day to day, but, given the shortage of time, I shall not list them all.
	As many other Members have pointed out today, food banks are a symptom of a wider problem. People depend on them for a host of reasons. Sanctions are one of the most important, but others are the delays and mistakes caused by all the changes and complications that the Government are increasingly imposing on those who rely on benefits, and the effects of their economic policies, such as the need for people to rely on part-time work when they want to work full-time.
	Another reason is the bedroom tax. I want to say a little about what is happening in my city of Edinburgh, and also to explain why I think that a commission of inquiry would be a good way of at least trying to inject some sense into the attitudes that were expressed during DWP questions earlier today. It appears that most members of the coalition believe that numerous people living in large houses are desperately avoiding moving to smaller houses, and fighting off all the people who are trying to move into the larger houses. In fact, that is happening almost nowhere in the country. In my constituency, many people who live in under-occupied houses are in houses for which there would not be a great demand if they became vacant.
	Above all, in Edinburgh and elsewhere, the number of people who could possibly qualify for smaller, one-bedroom accommodation is vastly greater than the number of such homes that are available. According to a figure that I saw a few weeks ago—and I have no reason to believe that it has changed since then—more than 3,000 people were living in under-occupied housing, according to the Government’s definition, and a further 14,000 were on the waiting list for one-bedroom houses.
	In that week, only 24 one-bedroom homes were available in any part of the council or the social housing sector. A commission of inquiry might at least get some awareness of the reality of the situation into the minds of Ministers and Government Back Benchers.
	I suspect that when the House votes on the motion, Government Members who have not been in the Chamber for the debate will come flooding in to defeat it. Perhaps the Minister will surprise us and tell us that the Government will allow the motion to be passed, but I suspect that that will not happen. However, given that this is a Back-Bench rather than a Government or an Opposition motion, I hope that at least some members of the coalition parties will show the humanity that others have shown today. I hope that they will recognise that there is a problem whose extent needs to be assessed, and will stand along with those in the Chamber and outside who are prepared to speak up for the people who are suffering as a result of the inhumane policies of this Government.

Chris Bryant: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the Government Members who signed the motion, not least because they have given us an opportunity to hear some of the most insightful and moving speeches that I have heard for a long time in the House. It is a shame that nearly all of them had to be made by Opposition Members because so few Government Members turned up to speak, but I am sure that Government Members had other interesting things to do. I should add that I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) was insightful as well. It had barely a partisan bone in it, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for the views that he espoused tonight.
	Let me begin by listing some facts on which I hope we can all agree. We all believe that the best route out of poverty is work, that those who can work should work, that those who need help to work should receive that help, that a civilised nation cares for the vulnerable, that at times we may all need the support of the state to get back on our feet, that a strong national health service, free at the point of delivery, is a key part of getting people back into work, and that education cannot stop at 16 or at 18 or, for that matter, at 21 if people are to acquire the skills that they need in order to prosper in a fiercely competitive world.
	As Labour colleagues have been referring to what we will do when we form the Government in 2015, the Minister has, on several occasions, been heard chuntering, “Oh yes, the shadow Secretary of State says you’re going to be tougher on welfare.” We are, because we know that the best way to be tough on the welfare budget is to get people into work. We are absolutely determined that we will not do what this Government did immediately on coming into power in 2010, which was, without a shred of evidence, to abolish the future jobs fund that was giving young people an opportunity. We will do exactly the opposite. We will bring in a jobs guarantee for every under 24-year-old, because we have seen what is happening in Wales where a new scheme has been brought in to replace what this Government have been doing and that has put 7,748 young people into work. Some 80% of those jobs are in the private sector and 96% of those who have gone into those jobs
	have then gone into full-time employment. That is being tough on the welfare budget—not being tough on the recipients of welfare, but being tough on the welfare budget—and that is exactly what we intend to do.
	We all know that there are areas of the country that have suffered deprivation for decades. Those are the places—in particular, the mining, shipbuilding and iron and steel cities and towns of this country—where one industry flourished, dominated and then died. That is what many of the speeches this afternoon have been about. However, the indices of deprivation come not single spies, but in battalions. All too often, with poverty comes poor housing, poor educational attainment and poor diet, as well as high levels of long-term unemployment, disability, mental health problems, obesity, malnutrition, teenage pregnancy, ischaemic heart disease, type 1 and type 2 diabetes and also, therefore, blindness. The poor die younger and are more likely to die of their first coronary or their first stroke. They are more likely to be the victims of crime, especially violent crime. Each of those problems exacerbates the other, so we have a vicious circle of poverty with children trapped by their parents’ opportunities or lack of ambitions. In short, all too often poverty is hereditary in Britain—as hereditary as the monarchy or, for that matter, a place at Eton.
	The image that those on the right would have us all subscribe to of those living in poverty is far from the truth. Often the poor work the hardest, at the least hospitable hours, with poor protection and for paltry pay. Frequently, as many Members have said, they take several jobs to be able to pay to put food on the table. They travel for hours to work because they cannot afford properties in expensive places where there are more jobs. Because they take pride in the ability to stand on their own two feet, they often refuse to claim all they are entitled to or to accept charity. We should applaud them, not denigrate them.
	When the Secretary of State came to Merthyr Tydfil and told everybody that the answer to their problems if they were out of work was to get on a bus down to Cardiff, he simply did not know the facts. First, there are not buses that will get people to Cardiff in time for most jobs on low pay that start very early in the morning. Secondly, if they are going to be doing shift work, they cannot possibly rely on buses to get them to work. Thirdly, there are eight people applying for every job that is available in Cardiff so the situation is not much better than in Merthyr Tydfil. Most importantly, if people are spending half of their daily wage every day on getting on the bus to work and getting back home, the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to make work pay. That is what we need to change: we need to make work pay.
	There have been massive changes in welfare in this country since 2010, especially since the Government changes to welfare came in last summer. Food prices have risen far more on average than those of other goods, and that has hit many poor families. According to Which?over the last six years food prices have risen over and above general inflation by 12.6% and nearly half of consumers now say they are spending a larger proportion of their available income on food than just 12 months ago. Six in 10—60%—are worried about how they will manage their future spending on groceries if prices continue to rise, and it looks as though they will. It must surely be shaming for this country that,
	between April and September, more than 350,000 people—150,000 of whom were children—received at least three days of emergency food from Trussell Trust food banks. That represents a threefold increase on the same period last year and a dramatic rise from 2009-10, when just 41,000 people received food aid. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said, the Trussell Trust has stated that
	“rising living costs and stagnant wages are forcing more people to live on a financial knife edge where any change in circumstance can plunge them into poverty.”
	That is precisely what the Government’s welfare changes have done.
	In March last year, Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned research into food banks and promised to publish the results last summer. The Government have had the results of the review since last June and, bizarrely, have now been reviewing them for far longer than it took to write them. I do not know whether they need educational assistance to read the report and present it to the public, but it is about time we all saw the findings that they have had in their pocket since last June.
	The Trussell Trust has reported rising food bank use due to the bedroom tax, and states that 35% of its clients were referred due to delays in receiving benefits. There is no way out of this; the Government cannot avoid responsibility. Yes, charities are picking up the difference, but that is not the kind of society we should be living in. On top of that, the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations, said that a survey of 51 of its biggest members found that more than half their residents affected by the bedroom tax—32,432 people—were unable to pay their rent between April and June last year. Contrary to all the rumours put out by The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, the survey shows that a quarter of those affected by the tax had fallen behind with their rent for the first time in their lives. That is not their fault; it is the Government’s fault.
	One report, the Real Life Reform report, interviewed 74 households in the north of England last July, three months after the changes came in, then again three months later. In September, it found that over a quarter of the people in the survey reported having less than £10 a week to live on once rent, food and bills were accounted for. The report also found that 37% said they had no spare cash at all, and that families were spending an average of just £23 per person a week—or £3.30 a day—on food. Those were people in work, and for those with school-age children, £1.80 of that daily allowance was going towards a school dinner. Households were spending an average of £26 a week on gas and electricity, which equated to 10% of gross income. That was in July, not during the winter months when the costs would be much higher.
	Three months later, that same survey found that the number of households spending less than £20 a week on food had increased from a quarter to a third, that the number of people having no money left each week had risen to 51%—more than half—and that the average spend on food per person per day had gone down from £3 to £2.10. It also found that households were spending 16% more on gas and electricity, taking them into fuel poverty. In addition, 33% of respondents now had council tax debt as well.
	The loan sharks are flourishing, the number of those in fuel poverty is rising and the number of homeless people is rising. The number of those relying on charity to feed their children is also rising, and the number of those wanting to work more hours is at a record high. And for the first time ever, the number of those in work and in poverty is higher than the number out of work. The number of those in debt, in arrears and in despair about their finances is rising. Even Sir John Major knows that more and more people this winter have been choosing between heating and eating. It feels as though a worldwide economic crunch, manufactured in the boardrooms of Wall Street, on the executive floors of international banks and on the trading floors of the City of London, has been visited on the most vulnerable in our society. Those who struggle to buy shoes for their children have paid the price of austerity, not the well-heeled. We should be ashamed; the Government should certainly be ashamed. This is why we need a commission of inquiry.

Michael Penning: Apart from a short comfort break, I have sat through the whole debate, finding it very interesting. I found the tone and manner of most of it to be exemplary, and a credit to the House and the Backbench Business Committee. I will take exception with the Opposition Front-Bench team, because if they were so determined that they wanted this they could have had this debate and pushed for this inquiry during Opposition day debates last week or later in this week. They could even have signed the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), but they did not; there are three names on the Order Paper, but none from the Front Bench. They have suddenly decided—[Hon. Members: “It is a Back-Bench debate.] So why did we have the debate last week? What about the business next week? They have not done it.
	Let us not get into the semantics of what went on but look at what happened during the debate. [Interruption.] For someone who sits there and complains about other people chuntering from a sedentary position, I must say that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is the leading expert in it. We heard contributions from: the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton; my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies); the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick); my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy); the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram); my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming); the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson); my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley); and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). As I say, it is a credit to the Backbench Business Committee that it listened to the Back Benchers and tabled this debate.
	The contribution from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton was wide-ranging. I am pleased that he did not place all the blame on the
	coalition Government, not least because he was aware that the work capability assessments were introduced by the previous Administration, as was the Atos contract, which we discussed at Work and Pensions questions. So we inherited the assessments that are being complained about by hon. Members from across the House today, particularly those being carried out by Atos. We are working hard to improve the situation and deal with the mess we inherited.
	[Interruption.] 
	I would like to know how it is possible that we are making it worse, as the contract we are working to is exactly the one we inherited. The hon. Member for Derby North, from a sedentary position, asks why. We were trapped in this because the previous Administration signed the contract. We need to make sure that the work capability assessment works as we go forward.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Michael Penning: I will not give way, because I do not have time.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth raised the most important issue, and I am pleased that the shadow Secretary of State is here now. The shadow Minister engaged in a rewriting of history. My hon. Friend and several others alluded to the fact that the shadow Secretary of State said that Labour would be tougher than the Tories on welfare and on welfare reforms. There was no nuance about helping more people. Labour said it would be tougher than the Tories on welfare. We have saved £83 billion on welfare spending—that is the predicted saving. I would like to know where those cuts would take place if not through welfare reform. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) says from a sedentary position that the cuts would come through jobs, but more than 1 million people have been placed into jobs since this Government took office. That is most important.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Michael Penning: I will give way to the hon. Lady because she has sat through the whole debate without having an opportunity to speak, and it is a credit to her.

Lady Hermon: Before the Minister came into his current job, he was a very effective Minister in Northern Ireland. He will know, therefore, that in Northern Ireland we have had an increased threat from dissident republicans, who are deeply and utterly ruthless. Would it not be worth while to extend this proposed commission to Northern Ireland? I hope that those who have proposed it would support that, but that is a point that could be clarified later. If the commission were to be granted, we could have a worthwhile review of and inquiry into whether deprivation and poverty in Northern Ireland have fed into the increase in dissident violence. Would that not be worth while?

Michael Penning: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her comments about my time as a Minister in Northern Ireland. That means an awful lot to me. Most of the welfare reforms have not been implemented in Northern Ireland yet because they are being blocked by one particular party, so it is difficult to see how we could appraise what was going to happen in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom because the welfare reforms have not been introduced
	there in the way that they have in the rest of the country. I do not think that the answer at this stage is to have an independent review. The Government issue huge amounts of research—very expensive research—and we need to look carefully at what is going on.
	We have of course brought in the benefit cap and reformed housing benefit. My constituency has one of the largest council-run social housing stocks in the country—nearly 16,000 council properties—as well as quite a large housing association stock. I get family after family saying to me, “Why do my children have to do their homework in the corridor? Why can’t we move into a larger property.”

Chris Williamson: Build more houses.

Michael Penning: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says build more houses. Absolutely. His party had 13 years to do so. The housing situation has not suddenly occurred in the last five minutes. Labour did not do it when it was in Government, and yet it wants to rewrite history this evening. That is not possible and it will not happen. We need to ensure that we have fairness in the system. I have listened carefully to Members throughout the debate. The system has to be fair for both sides. It has to be fair to the people who are working and to those who are on benefit.
	Earlier in the debate someone mentioned the Channel 4 programme. The idea of Channel 4 being supportive of this Government would be a shock to the system and to Channel 4. I was brought up in a working class area in north London, and, as I have said, I have two estates in the top 10% of the most socially deprived areas, but I was shocked by what I saw.

Chris Williamson: It was not a fair representation.

Michael Penning: Whether or not it is a fair representation is a matter for Channel 4. Like the rest of the country, I sat and watched the programme. I have not said anything about it, because I do not know the facts. I will go and see what is happening on the ground rather than speaking in generalisations. Channel 4 is not in any way a mouthpiece for this Government. It has been hugely critical of what we have been doing.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Michael Penning: I will not give way, because I want to make some progress. I did not intervene on the hon. Gentleman, so he will have to understand.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley made an important point about people who have moved from employment and support allowance to jobseeker’s allowance. It is enormously important that they know what benefits they are entitled to. As I said to the Work and Pensions Committee the other week, I will look carefully at the decision letter they get when they are told that their ESA has been stopped and what they are able to claim. That is a simple way to ensure that they understand the benefits they are entitled to and that families are not short of money.
	The hon. Gentleman was the only Member to raise the issue of the minimum wage. The debate about what it will be raised to is taking place now. We will wait to
	hear what the independent review says. It is an important debate for people who are in work but require help from other benefits.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West gave a wide-ranging speech. I will have to write to him about when the credit unions will be able to charge monthly interest. I have been a member for more than 12 years, and believe that the credit unions make a very important contribution to our communities. In particular, they stop that man with a threatening look from knocking at the door on a Friday night, just after pay day. All of us who have grown up on such estates have had that frightening experience. In many ways, the credit union can really help with that problem.
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about discretionary payments and the fact that people have to apply again and again. There is nothing in the rules that says it should be for three months or for any other time scale. It is plainly obvious in many cases that an individual will be able to receive the payment for the long term and that the local authority should be able to rule on that. As we said at Question Time today, most local authorities are not using all their discretionary payments, and those that have can apply for extra payments under the scheme. We are looking forward to seeing how we can take that forward to ensure that we can give those assurances to local authorities. It is important that when Members go back to their constituencies they speak to their local authorities about what they should be doing, because there is no rule on the matter. My own local authority is using the three-month rule and there is no need for that in many cases. Local authorities should look at individuals rather than the numbers.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale made an important speech and a good contribution to the debate, not least because he accepted from the outset that welfare reform is imperative. I was slightly concerned during his speech by the idea that if we are not careful, we might start thinking that all welfare reform will have a massive effect. In many ways, welfare reform can have a beneficial effect on people, particularly those who have been out of work for a considerable amount of time and, thinking of my portfolio, those who have disabilities or long-term illnesses and have not been able to get back into work. For instance, the Access to Work programme is often the key to getting those people back in to work. It is important that we understand how the different schemes work and that hon. Members ensure that there is understanding in their constituencies.
	The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth talked about bogus appointments. I would love to know about that and how it happened, so perhaps we can meet after the debate. It is obviously fundamentally wrong for bogus appointments to be made and for people to then be sanctioned. It would be much appreciated if she or any other hon. Member could help us with such issues.
	Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I apologise. I think you have known me long enough to accept that that was a genuine mistake.
	The whole debate has been sensible, apart from the contribution of the shadow Minister, who is chuntering away again, ruining the quality of the debate as usual. It is important that the Backbench Business Committee can introduce such a debate. If the Opposition Front
	Benchers had wanted it so much, they could have introduced it in their own time. We should let the House decide this evening.

Michael Meacher: This has been an excellent debate, one of the best that I have attended. The evidence from all parts of the House about the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on poverty was both compelling and systematic. Except for the Minister, at the end, it was relatively free of tribalism.
	There was little disagreement about the need for a commission of inquiry, with an emphasis on the 4 million children growing up in poverty. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in a considered speech, said that the bedroom tax should be, if not abolished, at least conditional on enough social housing being built and that sanctions for technicalities are totally intolerable. I am grateful to him for saying that. We heard about the level of debt standing at 40% in Liverpool, and I am sure that the same applies in many other cities. We also heard evidence from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) about a range of issues that must be considered in detail, not just in terms of the framework of policy. I agree with that.
	We heard a passionate speech about the housing crisis, the catastrophic drop in Government investment in housing and the price-to-income ratio that puts housing totally out of the reach of poorer people. We heard about the damaging effects of the Government’s switch—convenient to the Chancellor, of course—from RPI to CPI and that the loss of a discretionary social fund was forcing people back into the hands of loan sharks. We also heard about the DWP staff culture of looking for targets to achieve sanctions. Those are all important points.
	There were significant disagreements. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) gave, I think, the traditional Conservative response, as one might expect, giving the Chancellor the overriding right to pursue an austerity policy irrespective of the impact on ordinary people. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) strongly opposed that because of the Government’s choice to put the burden on the poor.
	I hope that all Members of the House will support the motion, because we need a commission of inquiry.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 125, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that a commission of inquiry should be established to investigate the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on the incidence of poverty.

Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had a very important debate and a very decisive result—the House has spoken strongly, by 125 to two. I do not
	think that anyone could deny that this is a critically important issue. Can we therefore be assured that the Minister will respond, either now or tomorrow, in order to answer the fact that Parliament has decided and the Government should take note?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but it is not a matter for the Chair. If the Minister of State wants to respond, he can, but he is under no obligation to do so. [Interruption.] No, the Minister does not wish to respond. The right hon. Gentleman’s point stands on the record.

Business without Debate

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order of 16 December 2013),
	That in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended, Professor Monojit Chatterji be appointed as lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, for a period of three years from 26 January 2014.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

ORAL CANCER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

Paul Beresford: I am particularly delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench because she understands my unusual form of English, which is really quite helpful.
	I must first declare a double interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on dentistry and as a very part-time practising dentist. This means that I am a member of the profession that faces the detection and treatment of the appalling disease of oral cancer. Over the years I have detected perhaps seven cases among my patients. We picked them up at a very early stage, and I believe that as a result those involved were all successfully operated on and treated without disfigurement, and survived.
	I recall being called in by a colleague for a second opinion on a patient who was very well known in the media. I confirmed my colleague’s opinion that the small growth behind the lower right wisdom tooth was cancer. My colleague referred him to a specialist oral surgeon. The patient then disappeared off our horizon. He did not return for regular check-ups or go to the oral surgeon. As I said, he was a famous media personality. About two years later, news reports stated that he had died in spite of late treatment involving massive oral surgery disfigurement. As we later discovered, he had not wanted to hear my advice or my colleague’s. He went to see his GP, who gave him a bottle of some green fluid to paint on the ulcer, thus allowing the cancer to grow. This sad example indicates the first problem of oral cancer—that there is insufficient awareness among the public, among general medical practitioners, and even, regrettably, within the dental profession.
	Last November, there were two cancer campaigns. The campaign on prostate cancer—Movember—caught the public imagination thanks to the proliferation of sometimes quite hideous hairy growths just under the nose on predominately male faces. The other campaign was an oral cancer awareness campaign. It was very successful within the dental profession but did not catch the public awareness. This is deeply disturbing, first, because prevention and cure is possible if the disease is found easily and early, and secondly, because of the increasing prevalence of the disease.
	The latest available reports and figures relating to oral cancer do not make encouraging reading. In short, the problem is worsening each year and is set to continue to do so unless decisive action is taken on a national level. Across the globe, oral cancer is now one of the 10 most common neoplasms. About 6,000 new cases of oral cancer are reported annually in the UK, with 1,800 deaths related to the disease each year. The total number of new cases per annum has been steadily rising for the past three decades, to the extent that there are now 35% more new cases a year than 30 years ago. The problem has become so acute that oropharyngeal cancer is the fastest growing cancer in Scotland and is a similar, significant problem in the rest of the UK. To quote the British Dental Association:
	“No other cancers have shown such a significant increase in their incidence. Furthermore, treatment of many cancers is showing impressive improvement in survival, but oral cancer continues to have high death rates.”
	As I alluded to earlier, a key factor is late diagnosis, which brings me to my first point. Public awareness would be a huge help. Yawning is really dangerous, Mr Speaker, from a dentist’s point of view. That lump—that ulcer—in the mouth, particularly if it is painless, needs to be seen by a dentist. More dentists should be aware and look at the soft tissue, not just the teeth.
	The second and third factors are tobacco and excess alcohol, particularly when the two are combined. I will not dwell on them, because the Minister, the Government and previous Governments are well aware of the detrimental health factors relating to both. Dentists have a role to play, particularly in persuading their patients to give up tobacco smoking. I suspect that the Minister will enlighten us a little further on that in due course.
	The fourth factor, and the one on which I believe decisive action can be taken, is tackling the human papillomavirus. It is a very large family of viruses that infect the skin and lining of the cervix, vagina, anus, mouth and throat. There are two groups. One group—HPV 6 and 11—are relatively low risk, causing laryngeal and genital warts, while the other group carry a high risk of causing cancer. They are key in causing 13 different types of cancers, but of these viruses perhaps HPV 16 is the most dangerous.
	The last figures I have quickly managed to find on new cases of HPV-related cancers in the UK are from 2009, when 7,538 females and 6,484 males were affected. In 2010, 2,016 males and 2,253 females died in the UK as a result of HPV-associated cancers, namely cervical, penile, vaginal, vulval, laryngeal and oral. In UK males, the greatest proportion of those cancers involved new cases and deaths as a result of oral cancer. In females, oral cancer is a relatively close second to cervical cancer.
	The number of annual cases of HPV-causing cancers in men is rising significantly. They are not just oral cancers; they cover other areas as well. Indeed, if recent incident trends continue, the annual number of HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers may surpass the annual number of cervical cancers by 2020.
	Obviously, that trend will be affected by the success of HPV vaccines, which are advocated in this country for women but not for men. That is a little odd, because it appears that fewer men than women produce an immune response to HPV infection. HPV vaccines protect against HPV infection and disease, including cancers, in men as well as women.
	Australia’s policy of vaccinating both males and females is producing herd immunity. The effect on HPV diseases, including cancers, has been quite dramatic. The last chart I happened to see showed a 90% decline in the number of patients—both men and women—diagnosed with genital warts, caused by HPV, at a Melbourne sexual health centre between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2011.
	HPV plays a role in oral cancer and it is clear that gender-neutral vaccination would lead to a dramatic reduction, over time, in a number of cancers, including oral cancer. Immunising boys and girls would achieve real herd immunity for all such cancers.
	The burden of HPV-associated cancers is now almost the same on men as it is on women. Men currently face a significant and rising risk of HPV-associated diseases. I therefore put it to the Minister that it is not fair, ethical or socially responsible to have a public health
	policy that leaves 50% of the population vulnerable to infection. Such vaccination, combined with early detection and action on smoking and heavy drinking of alcohol, could save a huge number of lives just as we face a dramatic increase in oral cancer. I repeat that the next procurement round is in the offing: the moment and the opportunity is here now.

Jane Ellison: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing a debate on this important issue. It is a very current one, as I responded to a debate in Westminster Hall on HPV only last week. I will return to that point.
	I want to restate the Government’s commitment to making England among the best in Europe in improving all cancer outcomes, including for oral cancers. As part of that, we are committed to reducing the incidence or oral cancers, improving diagnosis rates when it occurs and of course improving outcomes for people diagnosed with the disease. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the earlier the oral cancer is caught, the more successful that can be.
	My hon. Friend outlined the scale of the challenge and, as he said, the numbers are quite stark. In 2011, the latest year for which we have information, more than 6,000 people in England were diagnosed with an oral cancer, and in the same year, more than 1,600 people died of the disease. That is, as it were, a milestone in a significant and worrying increase in incidence since the 1970s.
	My hon. Friend touched on some of the issues, and the explanation for the trend relates to changes in the prevalence of the major risk factors for oral cancer, particularly heavy alcohol consumption and smoking. It is estimated that more than three quarters of cancers affecting the upper aerodigestive tract, including oral cancers, are caused by alcohol and tobacco. There are also such factors as the chewing of betel quid, which is more common among some south-east Asian populations. That is a risk factor for oral cancer and may have contributed to the trend.
	Reducing the damage done to the health of the population though smoking and harmful drinking is absolutely a high priority if we are to make progress on tackling oral cancers. My hon. Friend will be aware of some of the health initiatives that we have taken, particularly the tobacco control plan and our alcohol strategy, which we continue to pursue with some real energy.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of HPV, which, as I have said, was recently a subject of interest in Westminster Hall. It is good that it is being debated so thoroughly, including in making the link to the different kinds of cancer with which HPV is associated. He will know that there is growing evidence that the human papillomavirus, which is already linked to the development of the more than 99% of cases of cervical cancer in women, is a major risk factor for about a quarter of head and neck cancer cases.
	If we can reduce incidence of HPV in females through high uptake of the national vaccination programme, a reduction of other HPV-associated cancers in females and males is likely to follow, but I will pick up my hon. Friend’s good point about herd immunity. Since 2008, more than 6 million doses of vaccine have been given in
	the UK, with 87% of the routine cohort of girls completing a three-dose course in the 2011-12 academic year. That is one of the highest uptakes of any vaccination programme in the developed world.
	I know that my hon. Friend is keen that HPV vaccination should become universal. When the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation first developed its recommendations, it concluded that should vaccine uptake among girls be high, the vaccination of boys was likely to provide little additional benefit in preventing cervical cancer in girls, which was of course the primary purpose of that vaccination programme. That result proved to be the case in the UK.
	The JCVI has, however, recognised that the protection that accrues from reduced transmission from vaccinated girls under the current programme may not be provided to men who have sex with men. In last week’s debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) introduced the idea that in some places, particularly those where a large number of people were born abroad or travel abroad, such factors are also a threat to the argument about herd immunity.
	In October 2013, the JCVI agreed to set up a sub-committee on HPV vaccination to assess, among other issues, extending the programme, as a priority, to men who have sex with men, to adolescent boys or to both. The HPV sub-committee is scheduled to meet for the first time on 20 January, when it will assess currently available scientific evidence and consider what further evidence is required to advise the Committee on the suitability of possible changes to the HPV programme. Any proposals for the vaccination of additional groups will require supporting evidence to show that it would be a cost-effective use of NHS resources, as my hon. Friend would expect. Public Health England has begun preliminary modelling to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating men who have sex with men in anticipation of further guidance when the HPV sub-committee meets. It plans then to undertake further work to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adolescent boys against HPV infection.
	These are complex issues, and the development of the evidence base, including mathematical models, by Public Health England, as well as the Committee’s deliberations, will take time. That process is important for ensuring that decisions are made using the best quality evidence, so we cannot hurry it. I explored with officials the possibility of taking those decisions more rapidly, but that relates to the quality of the evidence being assessed and the necessity of building the right models. That brings with it the concerns that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have raised about fitting in with the timetable for vaccine procurement, and on that I can give a little reassurance. Should the JCVI recommend the targeted vaccination of men who have sex with men, flexibility in the contracted volumes within the current vaccine contract may allow such a programme to be undertaken without the need for a new round of vaccine procurement, if additional vaccine is available from the manufacturer in the required quantities.
	I also undertook last week to explore with officials the flexibility in our contract and the potential for extending it to give us time to negotiate different procurement arrangements in the event that the JCVI makes that recommendation for adolescent boys, who
	obviously comprise a much larger cohort. We are not quite certain yet, but I am fairly sure that we are getting promising signals about the possibility of flexibility in those contract negotiations. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance that if that is what the Committee recommends, we would be in a position to respond without missing an entire procurement cycle, but I will continue to look at that closely.
	I want to take this opportunity to talk not just about prevention, but to remember the importance of rapid diagnosis. My hon. Friend graphically illustrated the tragic consequences of late diagnosis or of an early diagnosis being ignored. With early-stage diagnosis, five-year survival rates are more than 80%, which is very good by the standard of these things. Clearly, doctors and dentists have a vital role to play. Since 2005, the “Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer”, published by NICE, have supported GPs in identifying symptoms of oral cancer and urgently referring patients. That guidance is currently being updated.
	Furthermore, all dentists are now aware that patients presenting for dental care is an opportunity—quite rightly, as my hon. Friend said—to assess any symptoms that might suggest oral cancer and refer them if appropriate. A new patient pathway being piloted in 94 practices—he might be aware of this—includes an oral health assessment requiring dentists to examine the soft tissue of the mouth; assess a patient’s risk factor in relation to oral cancer; and offer advice on lifestyle changes. Given what we have said about the relevance of lifestyle to the potential for developing oral cancer, that is very important. Those pilots are under way, and a great deal is being learned from them.
	Once a cancer has been diagnosed, both dentists and GPs can use an urgent referral pathway to ensure patients get rapid treatment. The latest data showed that 95.5% of patients urgently referred with suspected head and neck cancer, including oral cancer, were seen by a specialist within two weeks, which is excellent progress. To ensure that patients get appropriate treatment, NHS England published a service specification for head and neck cancer last summer. This was based on NICE guidance and set out what NHS England expects to be in place for providers to offer evidence-based, safe and effective services.
	The Government have committed £23 million to the radiotherapy innovation fund, which has supported radiotherapy centres across England to deliver increased levels of intensity modulated radiotherapy. That is a more accurate form of radiotherapy that reduces the risk of patients with oral cancers suffering side effects such as permanent dryness of the mouth as a result of treatment.
	There is good news on research that I would like to relay to my hon. Friend. The clinical research network of the National Institute for Health Research is currently recruiting patients to 30 studies into head and neck cancer, of which five are focused on HPV-associated cancer. The NIHR also funds 14 experimental cancer medicine centres across England jointly with Cancer Research UK. Two of the centres have a disease focus on oral cancer.
	I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject. It is good that it is being brought up regularly in the House. That will illustrate to the JCVI how much interest Parliament is taking in its work as it deliberates on the
	potential extension of the HPV programme. I hope that he has found the debate helpful and is reassured about our commitment to reducing the incidence of oral cancer and improving the outcomes for those who are diagnosed with the disease.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.